The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
Hmm. Obama reveals stealth jobs initiative... https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6898 |
Page 1 of 3 |
Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Aug 09, 2011 5:52 pm ] |
Post subject: | Hmm. Obama reveals stealth jobs initiative... |
AP via Dayton Daily News wrote: WASHINGTON — Fire trucks and concrete mixers, semis, heavy-duty pickups and all trucks in between will, for the first time, have to trim fuel consumption and emissions of heat-trapping gases under new efficiency standards announced Tuesday by President Barack Obama.
The White House said the standards will save businesses billions of dollars in fuel costs, help reduce oil consumption and cut air pollution. The standards apply to vehicle model years 2014 to 2018. Three categories of vehicles are affected. Big rigs or semis will have to slash fuel consumption and production of heat-trapping gases by up to 23 percent. Gasoline-powered heavy-duty pickups and vans will have to cut consumption by 10 percent, or by 15 percent if the vehicles run on diesel fuel. The standards also prescribe a 9 percent reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions for work trucks, which include everything from fire trucks and concrete mixers to garbage trucks and buses. In a statement, Obama said people who build, buy and drive medium and heavy-duty trucks support the new standards. Obama had planned to unveil the standards at a trucking business in Virginia, a state crucial to his re-election hopes. But the trip was canceled Tuesday without explanation and Obama met privately at the White House with industry officials. He then flew to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to pay respects to 30 U.S. troops killed over the weekend in Afghanistan. Their remains were flown to the base. The White House projected savings of 530 million barrels of oil and $50 billion in fuel costs over the lives of the vehicles covered by the new standards, along with improved air quality and public health. The administration released no miles-per-gallon equivalent for the new standards, saying that to do so would be confusing given the multiple categories of vehicles, the different types of vehicles in each category and the varying payloads that each one carries. Officials did stress that the costs of making the trucks more fuel-efficient — ranging from hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars per vehicle — will be recouped through reduced fuel costs over the lifetime of the vehicles. It's the second round of fuel efficiency standards Obama has announced in the past month. Last month, the president announced a deal with automakers to double overall fuel economy to 54.5 mpg by 2025, starting in model year 2017. Cars and light trucks now on the road average 27 mpg. That followed a 2009 deal committing cars and trucks to averaging 35.5 mpg by model year 2016. |
Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:18 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
You think this is designed to stimulate job growth? How would that work? |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:18 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Hmm. Obama reveals stealth jobs initiative... |
I'm sure this will result in thousands of new "green energy jobs" or something that the Chinese are supposedly beating us in. |
Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:20 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
No, actually, it's pretty simple. The only way you're going to increase mileage by any significant margin with commercial vehicles is to reduce towing capacity, and make the trucks (and their loads) smaller. Smaller loads means more drivers. |
Author: | Raltar [ Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:34 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Kaffis Mark V wrote: No, actually, it's pretty simple. The only way you're going to increase mileage by any significant margin with commercial vehicles is to reduce towing capacity, and make the trucks (and their loads) smaller. Smaller loads means more drivers. I don't know much, so correct me if I'm wrong...but wouldn't that increase the cost of goods transported in this way? Which is like...a lot of stuff. Either that, or they would need to pay the drivers way less or something. |
Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:38 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Kaffis Mark V wrote: No, actually, it's pretty simple. The only way you're going to increase mileage by any significant margin with commercial vehicles is to reduce towing capacity, and make the trucks (and their loads) smaller. Smaller loads means more drivers. LOL, that was too many steps for me to connect to your point. I get that, but they are at least saying they are going to increase aerodynamics and yes drive train and engine tweaks. So it could be you are right, but maybe they have the tech to do things better. |
Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:40 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
It would, Raltar. I never said this was a smart thing to do. Only that it would, ostensibly, create jobs. In the same way that creating a national ditch-digging program would create jobs. They wouldn't get anything productive done (compared to before), but you'd have people getting paid. And the money to pay them would be coming out of the wallets of all the other people who still have jobs already. Arathain -- if the tech were out there, it would have been leapt upon. Joe SUV may not think in terms of his gas expenditures, but anybody big enough to have a fleet in the transporting business has an army of actuaries whose job it is to say to the guy buying the trucks "yeah, buy the one with the better mileage that meets our towing needs." |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:52 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Kaffis Mark V wrote: No, actually, it's pretty simple. The only way you're going to increase mileage by any significant margin with commercial vehicles is to reduce towing capacity, and make the trucks (and their loads) smaller. Smaller loads means more drivers. So much for the fuel savings. |
Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:58 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
But *each* truck uses less gas. See? It's brilliant! And you're only hauling around twice the chassis, twice the tires, twice the... oh. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Aug 09, 2011 7:01 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Bingo. You know, it occurs to me that the military has fuel tanker trucks that can haul from 2500 to 10000 gallons of fuel depending which model it is.. but in the event of war in Korea, the Koreans plan to emplace pipelines to move the fuel to the front. I'd be willing to bet our esteemed President doesn't know why that is, either. |
Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:29 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Diamondeye wrote: but in the event of war in Korea, the Koreans plan to emplace pipelines to move the fuel to the front. That sounds very vulnerable. |
Author: | Raltar [ Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:30 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
One would think that no one would destroy a precious resource like that and would rather capture it, but...well, people are stupid and probably would. I do agree that it woulds vulnerable. But so are slow *** tanker trucks. |
Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:44 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Raltar wrote: One would think that no one would destroy a precious resource like that and would rather capture it, but...well, people are stupid and probably would. I do agree that it woulds vulnerable. But so are slow *** tanker trucks. Yeah, but if you knock out a few trucks, there's more on the way. If you knock out a pipeline... they'd better find some trucks. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:46 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Arathain Kelvar wrote: Diamondeye wrote: but in the event of war in Korea, the Koreans plan to emplace pipelines to move the fuel to the front. That sounds very vulnerable. Not as vulnerable as you might think. You really only have to protect the pumping stations, the rest is just metal tubes that basically snap together like LEGOs. As soon as you lose pressure at a station farther down the line due to a breach, you shut the whole thing down (basically, the actual command and control is a bit more complex), and it's not like the Koreans are really short on manpower to protect it. It's a small country with a large population and large reserves. Even the pumping stations are small and modular and easy to replace. The threats are basically special ops/irregular attack, artillery, and air attack. The Nork air force is basically a joke, probably not anything to worry about. If they do slip an air raid through it's not going to be to attack a fuel pipeline that can be repaired in a matter of hours. Irregular attack.. well, it isn't Iraq, there won't be a ton of insurgents attacking it. NK special forces are a risk, but again, they're probably going after bigger fish. The biggest risk is artillery, since the NKs have an assload of it. However, most of it is not the long-range guns and rockets we always obessess over; the majority is average-sized howitzers and mortars. Defending against that is simple; you just put it outside the range of most of the guns and only use fuel trucks for the last bit, which you need to do anyhhow because it's not like you have time to drive individual combat vehicles to the fuel pipeline one by one. It's going to be pretty far back from the front lines, and difficult to locate. The worst risk is probably special forces finding it and then calling in artillery fire from the really big guns, but again, it's easily fixed. The smartest move they could make is laying persistent chemical agents over the pipeline end area since the pipeline isn't that flexible once its emplaced. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:48 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Arathain Kelvar wrote: Raltar wrote: One would think that no one would destroy a precious resource like that and would rather capture it, but...well, people are stupid and probably would. I do agree that it woulds vulnerable. But so are slow *** tanker trucks. Yeah, but if you knock out a few trucks, there's more on the way. If you knock out a pipeline... they'd better find some trucks. Yes. However, knocking out a pipeline is hard as hell unless you have air superiority, and even then it's a lot of effort. NK getting air superiority is.. well. I;'heard more unlikely propositions, but most of them involve reactivating the Iowas at this point, or mecha. |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Wed Aug 10, 2011 6:00 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Yes when things become less efficient it takes more humans to do them. |
Author: | Hopwin [ Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:24 am ] |
Post subject: | |
I work with truckers. This "initiative" will kill them. The cost of entry is already prohibitive and forcing all this green tech will only drive the little guys out of the industry. |
Author: | Midgen [ Wed Aug 10, 2011 10:40 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Hopwin wrote: I work with truckers. This "initiative" will kill them. The cost of entry is already prohibitive and forcing all this green tech will only drive the little guys out of the industry. That means hiring more 'new' truckers? SUCCESS!! |
Author: | Hopwin [ Wed Aug 10, 2011 11:40 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Midgen wrote: Hopwin wrote: I work with truckers. This "initiative" will kill them. The cost of entry is already prohibitive and forcing all this green tech will only drive the little guys out of the industry. That means hiring more 'new' truckers? SUCCESS!! Technically it will prolly be great news for mechanics since the higher replacement cost means more and more people will keep their existing vehicles on the road longer and longer. |
Author: | Aizle [ Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:03 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Kaffis Mark V wrote: No, actually, it's pretty simple. The only way you're going to increase mileage by any significant margin with commercial vehicles is to reduce towing capacity, and make the trucks (and their loads) smaller. That is not correct. There are a number of aftermarket systems that have significant effects on MPG, which do not affect towing capacity at all. |
Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:12 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Okay. So why isn't everybody using them? |
Author: | RangerDave [ Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:19 am ] |
Post subject: | |
F*ck emissions/efficiency standards [not really]! What I want are some damn noise-reduction requirements. Walking the streets of NYC, the noise from all the trucks and buses is frackin' ridiculous. When a garbage truck accelerates from a nearby stop, you have to practically shout to be heard by someone standing right next to you. There's gotta be some low-hanging fruit there that would allow for significant noise-reduction at relatively little cost. |
Author: | Khross [ Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:30 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Hmm. Obama reveals stealth jobs initiative... |
For the low, low price of $.30 a day, you too can protect your hearing in New York City |
Author: | Aizle [ Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:31 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Kaffis Mark V wrote: Okay. So why isn't everybody using them? The short answer is because the Transportation Industry is the poster child for penny wise and pound foolish. These systems cost some significant money up front, but pay out dividends over a few years, and most transportation management is short sighted enough that they don't plan that far, or don't know how. The long answer: Ground transportation is loosely grouped into 2 major areas. Private fleets and LTL carriers. Private fleets are large companies that own their own trucks and manage their own distribution. Think Walmart, most large grocery chains, etc. These are the companies that have the best chance of using one of these products and a lot of the smarter one's do. However, the problem is that these companies are in the business of selling food or other products. Their transportation departments are cost centers and therefore the red-headed stepchild of the organization. They are always screamed at to spend less money. Additionally, the old joke is that the definition of a trans manager is a driver with a bad back. Meaning, that the majority of the transporation management doesn't have any management experience, or business experience. They have gotten to where they are by working harder, not smarter more often than not. So their typical day is running around from fire to fire trying to keep the wheels from falling off. It is extremely hard to get people in that type of environment with that type of background to look at anything beyond what happens tomorrow or next week, much less try and do a cost benefit analysis and present it to their senior leadership for a large capital project. LTL carriers are true transportation companies. They exist to haul freight. Think Schneider, Roadway, UPS, etc. These companies don't do much with these types of systems because they bill their customers for the shipping costs. The comments about trans managers apply here as well, and in general there is less cost reduction pressure on the LTL markets because they just pass it through to their customer. But really, the biggest reason why technologies like this aren't used in the trans industry is because it is probably one of the most conservative industries in the world. Truckers DO NOT LIKE CHANGE. Seriously, any change is bad, even if the end results are good. Drivers and by extension trans managers often have to be drug kicking and screaming into the 21st century when it comes to any kind of technology. |
Author: | RangerDave [ Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:52 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Hmm. Obama reveals stealth jobs initiative... |
Khross wrote: Heh. Yeah, believe me, I've thought about it. |
Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |