My husband was an OTR driver prior to the EPA sueing the engine makers think what they did to VW Volker. His MPG in 99 driving a truck that would run 75 MPH with 665 HP at all times 2250 Ftlbs. of torque the biggest engine Detroit Diesel ever thought about even coming out with was 9.2 MPG grossing 80K lbs week in week out based on hub fuel stops. We are still struggling to get back to 6 MPG with the current round of EPA mandated emission control equipment that was installed on the engines. Areodynamics are actually 20% better than they were 17 years ago tire rolling resistance is better the oils in the transmissions and rear ends is better for lower friction drag there. In my bosses fleet we have 3 owner ops people that own their own tractor and lease it to us. They have what are called glider kit tractors with pre emission era engines installed into them. One of them last quarter averaged over 9.7 mpg hauling bulk plastic resin pellets in a dry tanker style trailer. Also fuel costs jumped not due to inflation but due to another EPA mandate that required the refineries to remove even more sulphar from the fuel. The old standard was 50PPM the new standard is 15 or less. That alone added an estimated 40-50 cents a gallon to the price of fuel. Then throw in the EPA requiring so called botique blends even of diesel fuel for certain areas for air quality it adds to the price. My boss buys fuel in bulk for our tanks we have here that way all our trucks leave here with a full tank. We have had the fuel quality change overnight as the EPA mandated a different blend to meet their standards from week to week. Right now we are dealing with a change from one standard to another and even though the Cetane the power rating for the fuel is the same the fuel filters are giving us fits.
It is easy to command somebody to do something as long as those so comamanded must cover the costs. California's political climate is an excellent example.
The time maybe coming for railroads and truck lines to impose a hefty surcharge on shipments moving through California.
This will drastically increase the cost of doing business in California. Coupled with California's high taxes and other regulations, it will accelerate the pace of businesses already fleeing the state.
Less economic activity will result. Less economic activity means less wealth, fewer jobs, but also the pollution associated with economic activity
The people of California can decide to leave, or replace their current political leaders.
There is huge problem with that idea. California is the Nations vegatable garden during the spring summer and into fall until the crops are grown in the Yuma AZ area. The Imperial and Salinas valleys grow close to 90% of all this nations salad greens tomatoes bell peppers grapes carrots artichokes strawberries almonds pistachios and I can keep on going on what else they grow for hours. Yes CA needs a major enema in their political thinking and leadership however boycotting their state is not the answer as millions of people across this nation would go hungry. Yes they over regulate things to the extreme and there is a growing pushback against the worst of their regulations in the court system. We all need to remember this on its own CA is the 6th largest economy in the world. However sooner or later they will end up getting a wake up from the voters. Trouble is until they do we as a nation are screwed by them.
Paul Milenkovic CO2 is perfectly harmless to human health whereas NOx has a bad influence, so if we save the Climate by improving fuel economy to reduce CO2, we will also increase NOx to kill more of us off, further reducing CO2 emissions?
I think both, greenhouse gas, particulate matter, and NOx reduction are equally important. As at least CO2 and NOx are contradiction you have to look for a balance. And that seems to be kind of a political question.
The German Government had focus on CO2 reduction for a long time. Now the public opinion seems to change more in the direction of NOx reduction as their health risks are more often published.
NOx is a direct health risk, climate change (CO2) can be a long term health risk.Regards, Volker (Germany)
Paul MilenkovicThe Volkswagen TDI Diesel scandal may also have been driven by differing values between Germany and the U.S.?
I think it is an international problem, greed.VW had a corporate culture of fear. There seem to be some paralles to companies with EHH as CEO. The engine designer had to complete a EPA compliant diesel to a set date. When they realized they weren't able to meet the deadline, they didn't want to report to the CEO. So the fraud software was developed. I'm sure the CEO learned of it much earlier than the publishing date.
Believe it or not we are glad that VW gets punished in the USA.They betrayed their European customers as well. With the fraud software the diesels were not compliant to the less strict European standards.
Here in Europe is not much they have to fear. Our laws are different. We don't have class action. Each person has to sue for himself. As it is expensive not many try.
Here judges have ruled that is just a small defect when it can be solved with just a software change. Some others rule VW has to take the car back. We still wait a Federal Supreme Court ruling. Regards, Volker (Germany)
Suddenly have a craving for a nice thick slice of fried baloney for lunch.
Shadow the Cats ownerAlso fuel costs jumped not due to inflation but due to another EPA mandate that required the refineries to remove even more sulphar from the fuel. The old standard was 50PPM the new standard is 15 or less.
We have less than 10 ppm sulfur in diesel fuel in the EU since 2008. At that time I drove a diesel car. I can't remember an excursive price increase at that time. But there was a tax deduction for sulfur free fuel of about $0.10.Regards, Volker (Germany)
Here in the USA the Government does not give a tax break on the lower sulphur requirements or the engineering to produce. Instead they come up to the companies say here is the standard meet it or face Millions per day in fines if you can not meet the requirements and we the consumer are the ones that pay for the R&D. All we have to do is look at the PTC debacle here in the states instead of requiring either ATS or ATC on all passenger lines and haz-mat carring lines Congress decided that oh lets demand a new system that isn't even on the drawqing boards we have no clue if it will work at all and require it in less than 7 years all the meantime require the Railroads to pay for the entire install themselves with their own money and the requirements to make it work are more strict than our Nuclear Saftey demands.
I asked several of my close friends that are load planners at larger compaines what they will do if CA proceeds with these demands. I can tell you this US Express will no longer run CA at all Covenant same Marten will refuse CA loads Prime will refuse CA loads Heartland will also and Crete will refuse them also. Crete Prime and Marten are 3 of the largest reefer carriers in the nation . Your talking over 13,000 trucks that will no longer run CA alone right there. They are talking full boycott nothing in or out of that state at all regardless of what it pays regardless of customers. When the mega fleets are about to tell a State NO because of their bull it will get peoples attention. Prime I know is no longer hiring out of CA so is Crete due to CA imposing new regulations on CA domiciled drivers that require hourly wages be paid for all hours away from the house. Sooner rather than later CA is going to tick off the industry that keeps them going and when they do the mess is going to make the riots of 92 and the cleanups from the earthquakes in the Bay area look like NOTHING.
VOLKER LANDWEHR Paul Milenkovic The Volkswagen TDI Diesel scandal may also have been driven by differing values between Germany and the U.S.? I think it is an international problem, greed.VW had a corporate culture of fear. There seem to be some paralles to companies with EHH as CEO. The engine designer had to complete a EPA compliant diesel to a set date. When they realized they weren't able to meet the deadline, they didn't want to report to the CEO. So the fraud software was developed. I'm sure the CEO learned of it much earlier than the publishing date. Believe it or not we are glad that VW gets punished in the USA.They betrayed their European customers as well. With the fraud software the diesels were not compliant to the less strict European standards. Here in Europe is not much they have to fear. Our laws are different. We don't have class action. Each person has to sue for himself. As it is expensive not many try. Here judges have ruled that is just a small defect when it can be solved with just a software change. Some others rule VW has to take the car back. We still wait a Federal Supreme Court ruling. Regards, Volker (Germany)
Paul Milenkovic The Volkswagen TDI Diesel scandal may also have been driven by differing values between Germany and the U.S.?
Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I quote here from one of my kinsman in the Serbo-Croatian-German Diaspora
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/14/the-lure-of-free-energy/
There is a studied unwillingness to see cost as the important metric-money is just a trading unit of energy.
There is a phrase in American English "What is your problem" that is asked whenever strangers get into an argument with each other. What my particular "problem" happens to be is any circumstance where "Money is just a trading unit (for) energy" is not understood, no not just misunderstood but where people have a "studied unwillingness", whether it is Energiewende Germany, David Chu's Department of Energy, enormous subsidy windfalls to wealthy Americans to install rooftop solar panels or purchase an $80,000+ electric automobile, the LEED building standard, my local food store that claims to be 100% powered from a source that is at best 20% available, the entire State of California, and fellow participants on this Forum who dispute what Shadow the Cats Owner is trying to tell us from first-hand observation of the trucking-driving industry.
The "cost" or "price" of anything is either the cost of purchasing the fuel required or to pay people (labor) or pay for goods (capital, which a German person in the 19th century in a round-a-bout way told us is a version of labor), where the persons supplying that labor in turn are purchasers of fuel or other energy source. In other words, the "carbon (CO2) footprint" of a thing is not just the carbon emissions from the direct use of fuel to make that thing or use that thing, it is also the indirect carbon emissions resulting from paying for people to work, because those people use fuel for their houses, transportations, food, and recreation. If those workers were not working on your project, they could be working on someone elses project, hence their per-capita energy use really needs to be charged to your carbon footprint.
In my opinion, LEED certification is an example of this. To be LEED certified as your building being "green", you have to not only account for the fuel used to light, cool, or heat the building but there is this complicated system of accounting for all of the indirect uses of energy in the materials and supply chains to those materials. Why don't we just add up to total cost of construction, labor and materials, along with the lifetime cost of the fuel -- for a building, an automobile, a truck, a locomotive -- and that is the measure on whether this "thing" is green or not? Such "cost accounting" is not only simpler, it is much, much more resistant to self-deception (such as how some of the most law-abiding and rule-following people on the planet could even think about how to build an automobile that only follows the rules inside a testing laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.).
All that money being spent in Germany on green electricity could be put to other purposes -- maybe helping the many people in Africa with no electricity? Maybe on healthcare (yes, healthcare in America is criticized for being more expensive than anywhere else and also for not being fairly available, but can I have a show of hands here, who here prefers, in their old age, to take there chances on the U.S. system and who would move to Europe to benefit from their system)?
Paul thank you for the support. I am tired of people saying that CA and their regulations are not burdensome. If they are not then why does CA lead the nation in companies fleeing my state is second. When the government thinks they can rule over everything that you do as a business your no longer in a capitalist nation or state your in a socialist state or nation. CA is trying to become the first one of those in the nation. Think about that for a moment they are demanding more than the FEDERAL Government requires for OTR companies to do business in their state in terms of Emissions and equipment required. They also require pay standards that violate Federal laws for OTR Companies. Then to really make things fun in CA anymore they just imposed on Diesel fuel an extra 42 cent a gallon tax on it. But instead of fixing the roads or expanding capacity for the roads all the extra money that is going to be taken from the industry via the IFTA is going to their Bankrupt Pension system. They registered it with IFTA so any miles an IFTA registered truck runs in California they can hammer us to prop up their retirees pensions. So those truckers that not Residents of CA never paid income tax to CA are being forced to pay retirees pensions now. The ATA OOIDA and TCA all trucker groups are all saying to Moonbeam Wilson we will see you in court on this one.
Shadow the Cats ownerWhen the government thinks they can rule over everything that you do as a business your no longer in a capitalist nation or state your in a socialist state or nation.
They also think they can rule over everything that you do as an individual and you are no longer a free American.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
Shadow the Cats owner ~snip~ Then to really make things fun in CA anymore they just imposed on Diesel fuel an extra 42 cent a gallon tax on it. But instead of fixing the roads or expanding capacity for the roads all the extra money that is going to be taken from the industry via the IFTA is going to their Bankrupt Pension system. They registered it with IFTA so any miles an IFTA registered truck runs in California they can hammer us to prop up their retirees pensions. So those truckers that not Residents of CA never paid income tax to CA are being forced to pay retirees pensions now. The ATA OOIDA and TCA all trucker groups are all saying to Moonbeam Wilson we will see you in court on this one.
~snip~ Then to really make things fun in CA anymore they just imposed on Diesel fuel an extra 42 cent a gallon tax on it. But instead of fixing the roads or expanding capacity for the roads all the extra money that is going to be taken from the industry via the IFTA is going to their Bankrupt Pension system. They registered it with IFTA so any miles an IFTA registered truck runs in California they can hammer us to prop up their retirees pensions. So those truckers that not Residents of CA never paid income tax to CA are being forced to pay retirees pensions now. The ATA OOIDA and TCA all trucker groups are all saying to Moonbeam Wilson we will see you in court on this one.
I'm calling you out on this part Shadow, I too live in California, and I read the new law that increases all fuel taxes across the board, it also implements a $100 annual fee for electric vehicle owners. The entire amount of money raised over the 20 years of that law goes into a RESTRICTED fund that can only be used for maintenance and repair of our failing infrastructure in this state. The only way it could ever be used for any other purpose would be with an amendment to our state Constitution.
Now CARB can petition the EPA all it wants, but if the EPA says no it won't happen, and with our current administration in Washington I expect to see a relaxation of the current standards. As for the tractors themselves, how many are made out of 100% aluminum for everything other than the engine, or carbon fiver for that matter? Zero, and why not, that would cut down on the weight on the tractor and allow you to carry more cargo. Don't try to tell me it's not feasible either, the only reason it doesn't happen is because no one is willing to invest in the technology. Hell, you can make a lot of things out of aluminum that is now made out of steel that would have the same tensile strength, and it wouldn't rust either.
My personal opinion is that the maximum weight should be changed, but into two different categories. If the vehicle travels less than 400 miles via highway it can be a maximum gross of 80k, same as now; here's the change though, if it travels more than 400 miles via intermodal(aka railroad) then the maximum can be 90k(which is what it is in Canada during the 'season'). This would do two things, dramatically increase railroads intermodal volumes and dramatically decrease long haul OTR service, a win for both in my book.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR Shadow the Cats owner ~snip~ Then to really make things fun in CA anymore they just imposed on Diesel fuel an extra 42 cent a gallon tax on it. But instead of fixing the roads or expanding capacity for the roads all the extra money that is going to be taken from the industry via the IFTA is going to their Bankrupt Pension system. They registered it with IFTA so any miles an IFTA registered truck runs in California they can hammer us to prop up their retirees pensions. So those truckers that not Residents of CA never paid income tax to CA are being forced to pay retirees pensions now. The ATA OOIDA and TCA all trucker groups are all saying to Moonbeam Wilson we will see you in court on this one. I'm calling you out on this part Shadow, I too live in California, and I read the new law that increases all fuel taxes across the board, it also implements a $100 annual fee for electric vehicle owners. The entire amount of money raised over the 20 years of that law goes into a RESTRICTED fund that can only be used for maintenance and repair of our failing infrastructure in this state. The only way it could ever be used for any other purpose would be with an amendment to our state Constitution.
One Forum member can "call out" another Forum member all they want, but the proof will be when the roads get fixed.
Aluminum and carbon fiber cabs to compensate for the 30 percent loss in fuel economy from the ever more severe emissions regs? Per the discussion, the emissions regs gobbled up all of the fuel economy improvements from aerodynamics, electronic Diesel injection, and research into Diesel combustion. Plus almost doubled engine maintenance costs. Aluminum and fiber cabs, yeah?
The CARB seems to think a Pirus will be a adequate 'tractor' to pull trailers with the regulations they are creating.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Paul MilenkovicDans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres.
Well, you kinda lost me there.
greyhounds Paul Milenkovic Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres. Well, you kinda lost me there.
Paul Milenkovic Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres.
Voltaire, a French writer, was satirizing the English by having a character in his novel say, "In this particular country, it is good to kill from time to time one of their admirals in order to motivate the other (admirals)."
The real-life event is that the English held a court martial, convicted, and hanged one of their admirals on the charge of cowardice -- after a skirmish with the French, he made a calculation that his ill-equiped and trained fleet was inadequate to the task of relieving a British garrison on Minorca. The French take on this was if the English were going to kill off their own naval officers, they the French as their enemy didn't have to it for them.
I wrote this in response to the claim that people in Germany were pleased that one of their largest corporations and employers was being fined billions of dollars in the United States in response to an action, that may have been taken in desperation, to meet the very strict emission standards on automobiles, Diesel automobiles, in our country. An executive of that corporation was also thrown into jail on Federal charges upon traveling to Florida. I brought up this situation in the context of a fellow Forum participant who self identifies as being from Germany and expresses the opinion that the very strict emission controls on Diesels -- in the U.S. -- affecting both the trucking as well as railroad industries, is not that big of a deal with respect to compliance.
The short version of this quote, "pour encourager les autres" is often quoted in the original French or translated "to encourage the others." It is quoted in the context of heated discussions about controversial topics where there are complaints that no one has lost their job or no one has gone to prison. For example, in the recent United Airlines forceful removal of a passenger to make way for one of their deadheading crew, I cannot count the number of times someone wrote, "Why hasn't anyone lost their job over this?"
The retort is that someone should indeed lose their job "pour encourager les autres." The nearest English language idiom to this is "the beatings will continue until morale improves" in response to the belief that any situation can be improved by imposing harsh punishment on selected individuals to put the fear into everyone else.
Gearld we as an Industry where using aluminum for Trailers our wheels and Tractor Bodies before the Boeing 707 was flying its first paying passengers around. Freightliner came out with the first all Aluminum cab in 1949. Alcoa has been casting wheels for us since the 30's and Frauhauf was using fluted aluminum panels since the 20's. We as an industry started using composites in hoods side skirts of tractors since the 80's heck for a little bit you could even get a full aluminum frame from Kenworth on one of their trucks. The latest model DD15 engine close to 30% of the engine extrior is composite and plastics to reduce weight. My boss specs every weight reducing thing he can onto his trucks that will last including Composite springs 60% lighter than steel aluminum hubs and wheels super single tires for the rear axles combined is a 500 lb weight reduction aluminum crossmembers where we can save about another 75 lbs. Trust me if there was carbon fiber componets out there for OTR trucks the fleets would be buying them. Our brakes at least where I work are being switched over to discs instead of drum why they are lighter by hundreds of pounds and stop faster. The problem is that air discs are not very common on an OTR truck and if we need repairs on the road it does happen sometimes not to many places know how to work on them yet.
We have cut weight from our trucks ourselves along with the makers of them trouble is regulations have made them heavier than we can cut the weight from them. IFTA which means Interstate Fuel Tax Approtionment. What those 4 little letters mean regardless of where my drivers buy fuel if I run miles in a state but do not buy fuel from that state I am still billed for fuel from that state. That means if I run across OH without stopping for fuel I still have to pay their fuel tax as if I had stopped and bought fuel there it is the same thing in all 49 states plus 7 provinces of Canada if you run up there. CA is punishing trucks that run there to make up for its own budgetory mess. Trucks buy a lot more fuel in a day than a car. Your car tank holds 20 gallons. A tank in my fleet is arond 150 gallons. It costs you 40 to 50 a week to fill up. It costs my boss between 350-400 a day to fuel up one of his trucks and we have 250 of them. See the little difference there.
Shadow the Cats ownerI am tired of people saying that CA and their regulations are not burdensome.
Who said, CA's are not burdensome? Envorinmental protection doesn't come at no cost. As all trucking companies workink in CA. have to carry the same costs, I don't see your problem. Yes there are higher cost but usually they are forwarded to the client. In the end the end-comsumer pays.I could understand end-consumer complaint but the trucking industry?
It more difficult here as we have a lot of trucks from foreign country on our roads which can refuel cheaply in their home country.
I didn't realize that the economic systems of our countries are so different. Here in Germany the government sets general framework in which industries act. Otherwise the industries would rule our country without any boundaries. Peoples health/environment are part of the framework.
The German government wanted to implement sulfur free diesel as fast as possible. So they deducted the tax that the price stayes the same tough the production costs are higher. That were 10ct per gallon. Here we are lucky that we have to import our crude. We can buy low sulfur crude.Regards, Volker
Paul MilenkovicI wrote this in response to the claim that people in Germany were pleased that one of their largest corporations and employers was being fined billions of dollars in the United States in response to an action, that may have been taken in desperation, to meet the very strict emission standards on automobiles, Diesel automobiles, in our country.
I don't know how you see it, But I think if someone breaks the law in a country, home or foreign, he/she should bear the consequences.
Paul Milenkovic I brought up this situation in the context of a fellow Forum participant who self identifies as being from Germany and expresses the opinion that the very strict emission controls on Diesels -- in the U.S. -- affecting both the trucking as well as railroad industries, is not that big of a deal with respect to compliance.
What big deal it is, can be seen in VW's efforts to cover their problems with a fraud software. I know there are a lot of costs but sometimes you have to implement regulations e.g. to reduce the smog in L.A. That comes at a cost but on the other hand there are saving in health costs. I don't understand the complaints. At least here in the end the end-consumer pays the costs not the trucking industry or the railroads. But perhaps this is different in the USA.
Regarding the comment from the first hand. As an engineer I have learned to calculate and in most cases there is more than one reason for a higher price. Over a long time period the inflation can be a large part of the price difference.Regards, Volker
I do not understand the complaints, either.
To the best of my memory, this was about Germany although Austria has similar taxes, and this took place in the late 1990s. The English-language BBC was reporting on protests by truck drivers in Germany regarding a plan to increase the tax on Diesel fuel, removing the price advantage of Diesel fuel over automotive gasoline. I don't remember the form of the protest -- carrying signs? Blocking roads? Organizing a strike? Was the BBC explaining this incorrectly? Were the truck drivers ignorant that they could simply raise their rates and pass all these costs on to consumers?
Trucker drivers eventually raise their rates and in this way socialize the costs of the taxes and regulations imposed upon them, but in the short term, there can be disruption that may even send many trucking companies into bankruptcy. And where do you think price inflation comes from? Key goods and services suddenly becoming expensive, either from oil embargos as in the 1970s, government regulation, and so on, and then the effect becomes a spiral of increased prices? One of histories most notorious instance of inflation was attributed to such external factors.
The corrosive effect of this inflation on society fabric was that the economic pain of the inflation was not shared equally; some people such as the aged on pensions suffered a great deal whereas younger people who were shrewed investors benefited greatly.
I am an engineer, but I also "humanities" courses for my degree in economics -- this was at a major Midwestern U.S. university (a "Big Ten" school to fans of American football) known for its scholarship in this area. I learned about a principle called "diminishing marginal returns", where if one keeps requiring every more strict pollution controls, the cost is never recovered by reduced health expenditures. My professor lectured how there are alternative means by how net emissions can be reduced and that government regulators and pollution control laws often do not take into account that there are lower cost ways of getting the same health benefit.
As to Volkswagen, it is not clear to me that their Diesel engine scheme even violated a strict technical reading of the U.S. law -- I don't think a case was ever heard before a judge in a U.S. Federal court, and the attorneys at Volkswagen thought it wiser to pay billions of dollars in settlement money rather than putting their corporate reputation in peril.
I talked about the European countries practicing Mercantalism, but I see this multi-billion dollar transfer from a German company into the U.S. Treasury as something midway between Mercantalism and something that happened in the last century that we can discuss at another time. If people in Germany just accept this, I suppose it is their sovereign choice, but really?
Last year my boss Operational Ratio was 3% that is after all taxes and expenses. That is what he made after paying his employees truck payments freight charges from the railroads fuel costs health insurance costs truck and building insurance costs workmen's comp insurance and utilites and his TAXES of all kinds related to the business. Out of that 3% he saves 50% of it to allow for future growth of the company 1/2% is returned to the drivers and employees as profit sharing the last 1% is all he allows himself to keep. His dad said it best how to become a millionarie from running a trucking company start as a multimillionarie you will get there fast. Yet there isn't one of his employees that have been here longer than 1 year that wouldn't crawl thru fire for this man. We had an employee who lost his adult son to a heart attack my boss paid for the funeral and set up a college fund for his kids. Most employeers now a days would be like by and could care less not the man I work for.
We dread the day when we hear the FMCSA or the EPA is coming out with new regulations anymore because we go what is this one going to cost us in real money. Why did VW agree to the Consent Decree it was cheaper than trying to fight the EPA. The 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. No EPA offical has ever been charged with a crime for extorion and that is what they do to companies they want to punish plain and simple. They did it to the OTR engine makers in the late 90's and then a couple years ago did it to VW. From what I have heard from a few buddies at CAT who own EMD and were doing the testing on the Tier 4 710 engine they had it met. Then someone in Washington changed the goalposts to force EMD to stop using the 2 stroke engine design. I can honestly see the EPA doing that to a company they have done it before. The first engines for OTR were set to meet it without EGR in 2004 they were going to go with DPF and DEF then the EPA stated sorry can not use that right off the bat to the engine makers they forced EGR on the diesel engine makers. My boss was a test fleet for CAT and had 2004 engines running DEF and DPF only with better MPG on them than what they had 4 years prior then the EPA moved the goalposts again 13 years ago. The EPA can be the most vindictive Federal agency in the world your ever going to deal with.
Maybe they try harder to locate the source of all their pollution woes. Think much further west. China by a collosal margin out pollutes the rest of the world due to their don't give a spit attitude towards the environment. It doesn't matter if you make cars here get 100 mpg when China doesn't enforce any emission regulations.
Paul MilenkovicTo the best of my memory, this was about Germany although Austria has similar taxes, and this took place in the late 1990s.
Looks like you are better informed than me. There were protests in 2000 when the federal government introduced the energy tax which replaces the fuel tax. Both taxes were about the same amount, no change but the fuel costs were high at that time. At that time the consultations for the eastern European expansion of the EU started. While canditates these countries had privileges.
Diesel costs were the ostensible protest reason but there were other problems. Many eastern candidates were low wage countries, fuel taxes and fuel costs were very different across the EU and perhaps most severe German trucking companies tried to cut costs and optimise their profit by employing their drivers as subcontractors. That meant they had to the whole health and pension insurance (usually employer pays about half of it) leading to wages below minimum wages.
Paul MilenkovicWere the truck drivers ignorant that they could simply raise their rates and pass all these costs on to consumers?
At that time the addinional costs were about $120 per truck and month. I don't know how it is in the USA but here you try to recover your costs. Otherwise the company becomes insolvent. To overcome cash flow shortages the government offered very low interest loans.
Paul Milenkovicand then the effect becomes a spiral of increased prices? One of histories most notorious instance of inflation was attributed to such external factors.
The European Central Bank considers 2% a healthy inflation. We had a number of hyperinflations so we are especially anxious.
Paul Milenkovic I learned about a principle called "diminishing marginal returns", where if one keeps requiring every more strict pollution controls, the cost is never recovered by reduced health expenditures. My professor lectured how there are alternative means by how net emissions can be reduced and that government regulators and pollution control laws often do not take into account that there are lower cost ways of getting the same health benefit.
I thought EPA has to provide a cost-benefit-analysis? I know that to solve a problem the last 10% can cost more than the 90%. There has to be a balance. NOx is not only a health problem but also a problems for mother nature. NO2 in the atmosphere leads to acid rain with consequences for soil, forests, and lakes. We had a lot of damage because of acid rain. About 50% of all tree species had damages of different degrees.
In the end the environmental protection goals are a political decision.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHRNOx is not only a health problem but also a problems for mother nature. NO2 in the atmosphere leads to acid rain with consequences for soil, forests, and lakes. We had a lot of damage because of acid rain. About 50% of all tree species had damages of different degrees.
Most of this historical damage was not NOx (more specifically, NO2 because NO does not generate acid directly) but sulfur. which the US addressed in the '90s and Europe somewhat belatedly addressed via the Gothenburg Protocol after 1999. There is an acid-rain problem from nitrogen oxides, but the contribution from all railroad sources is minuscule (and the "improvement" from Tier 3 to Tier 4 even more so). Now we are hearing about strict Tier 5 for locomotives, which among other things is likely to make some form of hybrid or energy-storage transmission essential for practical acceleration that does not require a calendar to calculate.
Here is some useful background on the actual chamistry and import of atmospheric oxides of nitrogen.
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.
Paul MilenkovicAs to Volkswagen, it is not clear to me that their Diesel engine scheme even violated a strict technical reading of the U.S. law -- I don't think a case was ever heard before a judge in a U.S. Federal court, and the attorneys at Volkswagen thought it wiser to pay billions of dollars in settlement money rather than putting their corporate reputation in peril.
There is an EPA pdf-file regarding panalty policy in internet: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/vehicleengine-penalty-policy_0.pdfIf I understood correctly there was a violation and the penalty could have been $37,500 per car. The EPA is know to be harsh especially if the companies don't co-operate and VW tried to cover their fraud to the end. So in the end it was much cheaper to look for a compromise instead of having to sue an EPA ruling. In the end a federal judge had to approve the deal.
As I said before if you deal in a foreign country you play to their rules. And you know from the beginning.
I'm quite sure I can't speak for the Germans but many feel like I described. Perhaps it has to do with the German system of justice. We don't have class action and we only have very limited corporate liability usually you have to sue responsible persons and proof their personal guilt.Regards, Volker
The ironic thing, to me, about the Volkswagen 'cheating' was that the engines ran better and more efficiently without the added "antipollution" garbage, and any driver of an affected car who thought he was being "cheated" or "injured" through having been sold a more tractable, better-performing, and easier-to-maintain vehicle is either a victim of someone else's propaganda or is happily queuing up for some of that legally-induced money -- a bit like how every cow killed by a train was a prizewinning purebred when it came to settlement or court.
As with locomotives, you have to look at the actual duty cycle even to find those periods where the NOx generation went above the spec - likely no more than a few percent of sfc mass flow or operating hours. The situation was made out as if the "pollution" was continuous and directly environmentally damaging. That is very likely a significant overstatement, especially as other contributing or accelerating factors (like HC/VOC) are themselves increasingly abated.
We had the same issue in the OTR industry. Someone figured out that the current spec engines in 1998 the year the EPA threatened to shut down production the engines were over the limit by less than .02 of a percent even in the so called cheat mode. How much more CO2 was that try about 2 lbs a year on a 600 HP Cat engine. So for 2 extra lbs of CO2 the EPA was willing to destroy an industry and ended up with engines that even with the current requirements pollute more overall on a yearly basis due to the fuel burned being MORE. So we have higher costs less MPG less reliable engines that overall produce MORE pollution on all levels thanks to some IDIOT in Washington DC screaming they cheated. They slit the throats of the patient to stop a papercut is what they did in our case. But what do the trucking companies know we are not government employees or EPA scientists with degrees from Harvard and Yale. The proposed tier 5 standards just to meet them Cummins our engine supplier is saying is going to add close to 15 grand to the cost of an engine that is just to the engine. Let alone the added expense of the added cooling the engines are going to require on the trucks the added weight from the packages. We are way beyond the point of diminished returns anymore.
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.