Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 63

Thread: Detroit Calls Emissions Proposals Too Strict

  1. #1
    Chief of Naval Operations johnnymk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    LEVITTOWN< PA> USA
    Posts
    13,621

    Detroit Calls Emissions Proposals Too Strict

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/bu..._r=1&th&emc=th

    DETROIT — Automakers said Monday that they were working toward President Obama’s goal of reducing fuel consumption, but rapid imposition of stricter emissions standards could force them to drastically cut production of larger, more profitable vehicles, adding to their financial duress.

    Mr. Obama ordered the government on Monday to reconsider whether California and other states could regulate vehicle emissions to help control greenhouse gas emissions, a reversal of a position taken by the Bush administration.

    The announcement came as General Motors and Chrysler are borrowing billions of dollars from the government to avoid bankruptcy, and as Toyotaprepares to report its first operating loss in 70 years. Shortly after the president spoke, General Motors said it would cut 2,000 jobs at plants in Michigan and Ohio because of slow sales.

    The California regulations, if enacted today, “would basically kill the industry,” said David E. Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, an independent research organization in Ann Arbor, Mich. “It would have a devastating effect on everybody, and not just the domestics.”

    But Mr. Cole said he thought major modifications to the proposed standards were likely and that action was still “a long ways off,” giving the carmakers more time to overcome their financial problems and develop the technologies needed to sell a full lineup of compliant vehicles.

    Right now, carmakers say they would be able to sell only their smallest, most fuel-efficient cars — models like the Toyota Prius, a hybrid whose sales have fallen sharply since gas prices began dropping last fall — because once-popular vehicles like pickup trucks made by Ford and G.M. are not efficient enough.

    “I want clean air and clean water just like the next guy,” said Erich Merkle, an independent automotive analyst in Grand Rapids, Mich. “But in the real world, there would be consumer outrage with the fact that they’re limited to maybe two vehicles and there’s nothing there that would meet their family’s needs.”

    Environmental advocates who have long challenged the automakers’ opposition to the proposed California standards say such regulations will help the companies produce vehicles that consumers want.

    Failing to invest in reducing emissions and increasing efficiency will only prolong Detroit’s problems, said David Doniger, climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

    “I think this is the pathway to their survival,” Mr. Doniger said. “If carmakers are going to survive in a world of volatile oil prices and global warming, they have to be making more efficient vehicles. When the economy comes back and people start buying cars again, they’re going to expect that gas prices are going to go up, and they’re not going to want the gas hogs that they used to want. Consumers’ tastes have changed in terms of what’s cool.”

    One concern automakers have with states regulating tailpipe emissions is that keeping up with a hodgepodge of standards would be difficult. They expressed support Monday for the ideal of cutting emissions but want their engineers to be concerned with meeting just one set of requirements nationally.

    The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which represents 11 carmakers, said it favored “a nationwide program that bridges state and federal concerns and moves all stakeholders forward, and we are ready to work with the administration on developing a national approach,” in a statement from the group’s chief executive, Dave McCurdy.

    G.M., the only Detroit automaker to issue its own response Monday, said it was “working aggressively on the products and the advance technologies that match the nation’s and consumers’ priorities to save energy and reduce emissions.” But the company also emphasized the need for “a comprehensive policy discussion that takes into account the development pace of new technologies, alternative fuels and market and economic factors.”

    Automakers are operating in the worst market since the early 1980s. New vehicle sales fell nearly 19 percent in 2008 and are universally expected to be even lower in 2009.

    Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, who has long been one of the Detroit automakers’ strongest allies in Washington, praised the president’s attitude toward global warmingand expressed hope that the administration would act only after studying the effect that “setting a patchwork of different emission standards” would have.

    “President Obama and I both share the goal of energy independence and a cleaner environment for our children and grandchildren,” Mr. Dingell said in a statement. “We have a unique opportunity in history to address the issue of global climate change and we must take bold and balanced action.”

    Mr. Cole, the Center for Automotive research chairman, said he believed Congress would ensure Detroit would be able to live with any new standards.

  2. #2
    Rear Admiral Lower Half uncledaddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    With Me, Myself, and I...wondering why we can't get along!
    Posts
    2,583
    This is BS. Another display of California's holier-than-thou, cleaner-than-thou attitude. Essentially, this gives California and their pompous azzes the right to dictate the standards for the entire nation.

  3. #3
    Fleet Admiral Jeffbx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    9,405
    Not only that, but they don't base it on anything realistic - they just throw a number out there & then legislate the mfrs to force them to comply.

    I've said it before, and I still hope that they get so restrictive that one of the big mfrs has to stop selling there.

  4. #4
    Admiral Airencracken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,684


    Yeah cleaner air and efficiency are horrible.
    "I remember my first orgasm, I just wish someone was there to share it with me..."11-05-2003 05:33 AM - Topane
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
    Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, & the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opiate of the masses. - Karl Marx
    Hell is other people - Jean-Paul Sartre


  5. #5
    Fleet Admiral Jeffbx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    9,405
    There's nothing wrong with working toward cleaner air & efficiency, but you can't force it by legislating it.

    Political regulations aren't going to chance the physical nature of internal combustion or increase the efficiency of electric motors & batteries.

    Efficiency comes at a cost - today, that cost can be:

    * Lower safety - by drastically lowering the size & weight of a car - remove air bags, ABS, roll cages, etc - it will be much more efficient.
    * Less comfortable - remove air conditioning, power windows & locks, power seats, multiple speakers, etc. also aimed at lowering weight
    * Much more expensive - hybrid & battery technology are not efficient or cheap yet. Count on a 30-50% increase in cost for the same car outfitted with a semi-efficient hybrid engine, and double the cost for totally battery powered.

    Obviously, the first two options aren't feasible for consumers, and option 3 severely limits sales in this crappy economy.

    It's nice for the politicians to sit there & pat themselves on the back for 'forcing companies to be responsible' when they don't have much of a clue what they're talking about.

  6. #6
    Chief of Naval Operations Nija's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    City of The Dead
    Posts
    13,561
    So there is a law in California that says people can't buy trucks?

    That's odd. And only Prius'? No Accord? No Camry? No Mini? No Malibu?

    "Nija is the dark soul of gotapex. We don't like to talk about him." - LPMiller

  7. #7
    aka the keg killer mechmike0034's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Ala-effin'-bama!
    Posts
    2,738
    Where are the emission regulations and controls for aircraft? Piston-engines in aircraft still use leaded fuel.
    "The price of progress is trouble." (C. F. "Boss" Kettering)
    "50% of the American public has below-average intelligence. 70% of the American public now has regular access to the Internet. Do the math." (unknown)

  8. #8
    Admiral guiseppewv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    East coast
    Posts
    7,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffbx

    * Lower safety - by drastically lowering the size & weight of a car - remove air bags, ABS, roll cages, etc - it will be much more efficient.
    * Less comfortable - remove air conditioning, power windows & locks, power seats, multiple speakers, etc. also aimed at lowering weight
    * Much more expensive - hybrid & battery technology are not efficient or cheap yet. Count on a 30-50% increase in cost for the same car outfitted with a semi-efficient hybrid engine, and double the cost for totally battery powered.
    Point #1 is only half valid. You wouldn't remove air bags and ABS or roll cages. You could use lighter material like an aluminum hood and trunk or lighter rims and engine parts.

    Point #2 doesn't contain much validity at all. Removing the a/c would remove weight and increase efficiency b/c the a/c is a leach on power and therefore consumes extra energy when in use. Removing power windows and locks does virtually nothing to increase efficiency. You would be better served by shrinking the gas tank by a gallon to remove ~8 lbs (about what a gal of gas weighs) from the weight of the vehicle

    Point #3 hybrid is efficient in big city stop and go traffic. It is especially efficient (vs not having it) in buses, delivery vehicles, and garbage trucks.

    Quote Originally Posted by mechmike0034
    Where are the emission regulations and controls for aircraft? Piston-engines in aircraft still use leaded fuel.
    As an engineer, I am always looking for the easiest/quickiest solutions for a problem. I don't understand why we don't go after low hanging fruit like this.

    Another place we could make huge improvements are with garbage trucks. They each spew (I read this somewhere) about the same amount of pollution as 300 cars. Why not fix them first? Require them all to be hybrid and/or run on natural gas and you would reduce a lot of emissions from the country. I don't understand why that isn't a choice.

    We are bailing the Big 3 out, why not buy a car for everyone who has a vehicle older than 1995 (minus collector vehicles and the like) and give them a brand new focus or something like that. Talk about an instant improvement in fuel efficiency and a reduction in emissions. I just think we are going about things the wrong way with the bailout and eliminating pollution; this was just an idea that popped in my head.

  9. #9
    Chief of Naval Operations johnnymk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    LEVITTOWN< PA> USA
    Posts
    13,621
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffbx
    There's nothing wrong with working toward cleaner air & efficiency, but you can't force it by legislating it.

    Political regulations aren't going to chance the physical nature of internal combustion or increase the efficiency of electric motors & batteries.

    Efficiency comes at a cost - today, that cost can be:

    * Lower safety - by drastically lowering the size & weight of a car - remove air bags, ABS, roll cages, etc - it will be much more efficient.
    * Less comfortable - remove air conditioning, power windows & locks, power seats, multiple speakers, etc. also aimed at lowering weight
    * Much more expensive - hybrid & battery technology are not efficient or cheap yet. Count on a 30-50% increase in cost for the same car outfitted with a semi-efficient hybrid engine, and double the cost for totally battery powered.

    Obviously, the first two options aren't feasible for consumers, and option 3 severely limits sales in this crappy economy.

    It's nice for the politicians to sit there & pat themselves on the back for 'forcing companies to be responsible' when they don't have much of a clue what they're talking about.

  10. #10
    Chief of Naval Operations InfiniteNothing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    10,086
    Japan doesn't seem to have much of a problem with emission standards. Even Ford has a PZEV focus.
    As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

  11. #11
    Chief of Naval Operations cheapie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    raising my pimp hand strong
    Posts
    13,042
    we are a different country than japan. we have different lifestyles, are more graphically dispersed, and i'm guessing have larger families to haul around.

    not make excuses but we can't really try to emulate their transportation model.
    70% of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Bob Sanders

  12. #12
    Chief of Naval Operations cheapie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    raising my pimp hand strong
    Posts
    13,042
    guiseppewv...commercial hybrid systems, while sexy, are still not economically viable in many applications if you're looking for a 3-4 year payback, especially with the current price of diesel.

    we need several things to get commercial hybrids going.

    1 - Continue to subsidize purchases. A commercial HEV has an average upcharge of $35-45k.

    2 - Consider gvt financing for these vehicles. Many fleets cannot get financing for regular vehicles, let alone one that has a 30% premium.

    3 - Battery technology is still holding the process up. Cost, expected lifetime, replacement costs, disposal, etc. are all still up in the air.

    4 - The best technology for refuse applications is a hydraulic series or parallel hybrid system. There are many test units out there right now but the product isn't currently production released from any supplier. This technology has the capability of reducing fuel consumption and emissions by 50+%, even more if you go with a series hybrid system (coming out in 2-3 years).

    4 - California has decided that the CARB incentives aren't going to go to diesel technology in spite of the fact that they are the most commercially available and robust option at the moment. Instead, fleet customers have to buy concept vehicles using different technology at a huge premium. This is just one reason CA sucks in this regard and has no business leading the rest of the country around by the nose.

    4 - Natural gas is great in the metropolitan areas that have the infrastructure to support it. Once you get outside the major cities, vehicle will have no place to re-fuel. While I realize it's a chicken or the egg sort of thing, it's a realistic barrier to market adoption of NG solutions today.

    Sorry if this is a little long. This is what I do for a living and I get frustrated seeing the talking heads on TV talking out their a$$ when it comes to this stuff.
    70% of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Bob Sanders

  13. #13
    Chief News Editor & Master of His Domain LPMiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    8,483
    Blog Entries
    2
    Graphically diverse? You've heard of tentacle porn, right?
    lpmiller
    Chief News Editor
    Nobel Prize Nominee
    Reverend in the Universal Life Church
    Once Shot A Man For Snoring Too Loud
    Way Too Lazy To Change His Signature

    "The strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, and the incapacity to tell the difference." - Calvin and Hobbes

  14. #14
    aka the keg killer mechmike0034's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Ala-effin'-bama!
    Posts
    2,738
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffbx
    It's nice for the politicians to sit there & pat themselves on the back for 'forcing companies to be responsible' when they don't have much of a clue what they're talking about.
    Quote Originally Posted by cheapie
    This is what I do for a living and I get frustrated seeing the talking heads on TV talking out their a$$ when it comes to this stuff.


    Everyone's an "instant expert" on transportation issues, from POTUS on down...
    "The price of progress is trouble." (C. F. "Boss" Kettering)
    "50% of the American public has below-average intelligence. 70% of the American public now has regular access to the Internet. Do the math." (unknown)

  15. #15
    Chief of Naval Operations cheapie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    raising my pimp hand strong
    Posts
    13,042
    Quote Originally Posted by LPMiller
    Graphically diverse? You've heard of tentacle porn, right?

    heh. i meant geographically dispersed.
    70% of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Bob Sanders

  16. #16
    Admiral guiseppewv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    East coast
    Posts
    7,116
    Quote Originally Posted by cheapie
    we are a different country than japan. we have different lifestyles, are more graphically dispersed, and i'm guessing have larger families to haul around.

    not make excuses but we can't really try to emulate their transportation model.
    I think you are spot on with this. I lived over there for a little while and they are completely different from us. Most of their major roads are more like back roads. They don't drive that much they have great trains, so they rely on that for their main form of long distance transportation. They also rely on bikes, buses, and walking much more than we do in the States. Comparing our transportation needs and theirs is comparing apples and oranges.

  17. #17
    Admiral guiseppewv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    East coast
    Posts
    7,116
    Quote Originally Posted by cheapie
    guiseppewv...commercial hybrid systems, while sexy, are still not economically viable in many applications if you're looking for a 3-4 year payback, especially with the current price of diesel.

    we need several things to get commercial hybrids going.

    1 - Continue to subsidize purchases. A commercial HEV has an average upcharge of $35-45k.

    2 - Consider gvt financing for these vehicles. Many fleets cannot get financing for regular vehicles, let alone one that has a 30% premium.

    3 - Battery technology is still holding the process up. Cost, expected lifetime, replacement costs, disposal, etc. are all still up in the air.

    4 - The best technology for refuse applications is a hydraulic series or parallel hybrid system. There are many test units out there right now but the product isn't currently production released from any supplier. This technology has the capability of reducing fuel consumption and emissions by 50+%, even more if you go with a series hybrid system (coming out in 2-3 years).

    4 - California has decided that the CARB incentives aren't going to go to diesel technology in spite of the fact that they are the most commercially available and robust option at the moment. Instead, fleet customers have to buy concept vehicles using different technology at a huge premium. This is just one reason CA sucks in this regard and has no business leading the rest of the country around by the nose.

    4 - Natural gas is great in the metropolitan areas that have the infrastructure to support it. Once you get outside the major cities, vehicle will have no place to re-fuel. While I realize it's a chicken or the egg sort of thing, it's a realistic barrier to market adoption of NG solutions today.

    Sorry if this is a little long. This is what I do for a living and I get frustrated seeing the talking heads on TV talking out their a$$ when it comes to this stuff.
    I agree. There are challenges to making the larger commercial vehicles more efficient but I think in the short term that is where we need to place emphasis. I say this because it is much easier to change 10M commercial garbage trucks than it is to change 100+M cars but it is just as effective.

    NG is a challenge and so is hydrogen powered vehicles but we need to make the move at some point in time to a different energy vehicle. Garbage trucks should be able to be changed (not exiting but new production of them) easily to NG because the garbage trucks should be going around a city picking up garbage and the garbage co or govt entity running them should be able install NG "pumps" within the locale they are operating. This might require some fed $$$ to start but it is not insurmountable. Also, city and school buses would benefit from this too. I know DC already has some.

    Battery tech is a ways off from making hybrids be "all they can be" but in the short term we need to start making some change to them in the commercial environment. There are some exciting battery techs that are in R&D right now which could make changes that will benefit hybrids but, unfortunately, we are going to have to wait these techs to come to fruition.

    I think the financing of vehicles is an issue but I also think that companies have to be less short sighted in their planning. They need to plan for 5+ years down the road and for gas prices being $4/gal not $2/gal. Lastly, I think large cities should be leading in the move to make these fleet changes. E.g. DC should be setting goals to have all garbage trucks, street sweepers, buses, etc.... have a fleet fuel efficiency of X mpg and to reduce emissions by Y% in Z years.

  18. #18
    Chief of Naval Operations johnnymk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    LEVITTOWN< PA> USA
    Posts
    13,621
    Quote Originally Posted by mechmike0034
    Everyone's an "instant expert" on transportation issues, from POTUS on down...
    The guy claims to be technologically more advanced than the last administration. He may know how to operate his blackberry, but when it comes to serious issues like alternative energy, he knows nothing more than a caveman.

  19. #19
    Chief of Naval Operations cheapie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    raising my pimp hand strong
    Posts
    13,042
    believe me...you're preaching to the choir. i'm just saying that there are very real infrastructure, technology maturation, and supply issues that are overlooked when people think pushing this kind of legislation down people's throats is the best way to make it happen.

    i can tell you on the commercial side that the truck OEM's are working as hard as they can to make their vehicles as efficient as possible. you wouldn't believe the effort that goes into making a class 8 (tractor) vehicle 1/2 of 1% more efficient. all the low-hanging fruit is gone. solutions are going to have to come from alt fuels, a dramatic change in JIT inventory management, shipping lane changes, or ????
    70% of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Bob Sanders

  20. #20
    Chief of Naval Operations johnnymk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    LEVITTOWN< PA> USA
    Posts
    13,621
    Quote Originally Posted by guiseppewv
    I agree. There are challenges to making the larger commercial vehicles more efficient but I think in the short term that is where we need to place emphasis. I say this because it is much easier to change 10M commercial garbage trucks than it is to change 100+M cars but it is just as effective.

    NG is a challenge and so is hydrogen powered vehicles but we need to make the move at some point in time to a different energy vehicle. Garbage trucks should be able to be changed (not exiting but new production of them) easily to NG because the garbage trucks should be going around a city picking up garbage and the garbage co or govt entity running them should be able install NG "pumps" within the locale they are operating. This might require some fed $$$ to start but it is not insurmountable. Also, city and school buses would benefit from this too. I know DC already has some.

    Battery tech is a ways off from making hybrids be "all they can be" but in the short term we need to start making some change to them in the commercial environment. There are some exciting battery techs that are in R&D right now which could make changes that will benefit hybrids but, unfortunately, we are going to have to wait these techs to come to fruition.

    I think the financing of vehicles is an issue but I also think that companies have to be less short sighted in their planning. They need to plan for 5+ years down the road and for gas prices being $4/gal not $2/gal. Lastly, I think large cities should be leading in the move to make these fleet changes. E.g. DC should be setting goals to have all garbage trucks, street sweepers, buses, etc.... have a fleet fuel efficiency of X mpg and to reduce emissions by Y% in Z years.
    I worked for NJDOT years ago. I was indirectly responsible for the installation of several NG pump installations and NG vehicles within the State. It has been a successful program and like T Boone Pickens states, it should be implemented in the rest of the country. Retrofitting existing cars and trucks is not complex and could be done with government incentives.

    As to buying new refuse vehicles and the like, have you priced new cab/chassis lately?

  21. #21
    aka the keg killer mechmike0034's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Ala-effin'-bama!
    Posts
    2,738
    Quote Originally Posted by cheapie
    ...you wouldn't believe the effort that goes into making a class 8 (tractor) vehicle 1/2 of 1% more efficient.
    I would, as would anyone who looks at it from a cost-per-mile-of operation perspective...
    Last edited by mechmike0034; 01-28-2009 at 11:12 AM.
    "The price of progress is trouble." (C. F. "Boss" Kettering)
    "50% of the American public has below-average intelligence. 70% of the American public now has regular access to the Internet. Do the math." (unknown)

  22. #22
    Chief of Naval Operations attgig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    the burbs of baltimore
    Posts
    11,965
    seems like if any manufacturer is really going to push an alternative fuel, such as nat gas, they need to turn their dealerships into Nat Gas pumps stations as well. Gas companies are not going to start adding nat gas to all of their pumps. And if they don't do it, and if the only places i can find nat gas is a government stations (I considered nat gas, and looked around, but only found 2 commercial stations in the area and they were both 5+ miles away), nobody's gonna buy a nat gas car.

    Same with hydrogen as a fuel... turn your dealerships into fueling stations, and heck, even give a discount if the car is your own brand. Getting that stuff and adding it on will hurt initially, but if your sales can be boosted because of such an initiative, i think it could be worth it in the long run.


    As for California leading the charge, i think it's retarded. If California's the only state doing it, it tells me that either 1) California doesn't know anything and all the other states are being reasonable, or 2) DC is too filled with detroit lobby-ists to do anything remarkable.

  23. #23
    Chief of Naval Operations cheapie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    raising my pimp hand strong
    Posts
    13,042
    Quote Originally Posted by mechmike0034
    I would, as would anyone who looks at it from a cost-per-mile-of operation perspective...

    exactly. so the people who say...just make the standards higher on the passcar segment and detroit will make the vehicles....have no clue how much work and money goes into increasing FE.
    70% of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Bob Sanders

  24. #24
    aka the keg killer mechmike0034's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Ala-effin'-bama!
    Posts
    2,738
    Quote Originally Posted by attgig
    seems like if any manufacturer is really going to push an alternative fuel, such as nat gas, they need to turn their dealerships into Nat Gas pumps stations as well.
    When was the last time you bought gasoline at a new-car dealer?
    "The price of progress is trouble." (C. F. "Boss" Kettering)
    "50% of the American public has below-average intelligence. 70% of the American public now has regular access to the Internet. Do the math." (unknown)

  25. #25
    aka the keg killer mechmike0034's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Ala-effin'-bama!
    Posts
    2,738
    Quote Originally Posted by cheapie
    exactly. so the people who say...just make the standards higher on the passcar segment and detroit will make the vehicles....have no clue how much work and money goes into increasing FE.
    Here's the other issue, while we're talking about fleets. It is ALL about cost-per-mile. Everything else is secondary, despite corporate "public statements", etc... If they can't haul it/move it/operate it at the lowest cost, they won't.
    "The price of progress is trouble." (C. F. "Boss" Kettering)
    "50% of the American public has below-average intelligence. 70% of the American public now has regular access to the Internet. Do the math." (unknown)

  26. #26
    Admiral Airencracken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,684
    Quote Originally Posted by mechmike0034
    Here's the other issue, while we're talking about fleets. It is ALL about cost-per-mile. Everything else is secondary, despite corporate "public statements", etc... If they can't haul it/move it/operate it at the lowest cost, they won't.

    Which is exactly why we need regulation and legislation to change the status quo.
    "I remember my first orgasm, I just wish someone was there to share it with me..."11-05-2003 05:33 AM - Topane
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
    Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, & the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opiate of the masses. - Karl Marx
    Hell is other people - Jean-Paul Sartre


  27. #27
    Chief of Naval Operations cheapie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    raising my pimp hand strong
    Posts
    13,042
    Quote Originally Posted by mechmike0034
    Here's the other issue, while we're talking about fleets. It is ALL about cost-per-mile. Everything else is secondary, despite corporate "public statements", etc... If they can't haul it/move it/operate it at the lowest cost, they won't.

    yes and no. companies like fedex, ups, coke, pepsi, PG&E, duke energy, etc. will spend the money to get the green image. so will municipalities that get to spend the taxpayers' money.

    trucker bob who owns 4 delivery trucks and two semi's.....not going to happen.
    70% of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Bob Sanders

  28. #28
    Chief of Naval Operations johnnymk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    LEVITTOWN< PA> USA
    Posts
    13,621
    Quote Originally Posted by Airencracken
    Which is exactly why we need regulation and legislation to change the status quo.

    Yeh sure, regulation and legislation really helps the bottom line. Gimme a break!!

  29. #29
    Chief of Naval Operations cheapie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    raising my pimp hand strong
    Posts
    13,042
    Quote Originally Posted by Airencracken
    Which is exactly why we need regulation and legislation to change the status quo.

    there is already EPA legislation which has made exceptional strides towards this goal. and it has cost the american consumers billions of $. probably a good trade.

    there's another emission level change coming up in 2010. already exceptionally clean, the newer engines will put out amazingly clean exhaust.

    but is that good enough for CA? nope. they have to designate diesel as old technology and won't allow clean-diesel hybrids from being considered for CARB (The California Air Resources Board) money.

    not only that, but if you own a commercial vehicle that's not 2004 engine cert compliant, you can't operate in the state . unless you want to upgrade your truck for a mere $10k.

    of course, since this will be a huge burden for CA-based trucks to bear, CARB is going to subsidize some of the costs...to the tune of at least BILLION $$$ of state taxpayer money. plus, for those companies based outside CA, they have to comply as well. which means your freight rates are going up.

    no wonder your state is bankrupt.
    Last edited by cheapie; 01-28-2009 at 01:37 PM.
    70% of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Bob Sanders

  30. #30
    Admiral guiseppewv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    East coast
    Posts
    7,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Airencracken
    Which is exactly why we need regulation and legislation to change the status quo.
    Which will put trucker Bob out of business.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •