Trucking's turn for carbon reduction / MPG

[Schadenfroh]

http://www.dailytech.com/EPA+Airs+P...eavy+Vehicles+for+First+Time/article19980.htm

Unsatisfied with merely mandating consumer vehicles obey fuel efficiency standards, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has now announced a proposal to regulate, for the first time, the greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency of heavy vehicles.

....

Combination tractors (commercial trucks) compared to their 2010 base emissions and fuel efficiency would be expected to "achieve up to a 20 percent reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and fuel consumption by 2018 model year."

....

Don Anair, a senior analyst at The Union of Concerned Scientists Clean Vehicles Program says its about time these gas guzzlers be brought in line.

I imagine this will cause the initial cost of trucks to increase, depending on the implementation, not sure if the MPG saved will pay for itself in the long run or not.

I wonder when they are going to start regulating the amount of fuel consumed / pollution emitted from large container (shipping) vessels. Some of the super-massive ones might be better off with minuscule nuclear reactors like Navy vessels. Although, pound for pound, the container ships are far better than trucks (I would imagine).

One of the bad things about our large country is that it gets tricky dealing with trains / railroads (which are nice for small countries). Thus, we are more reliant on trucks for timely delivery of goods.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

make trucks lighter

 

[ElFenix]

trains aren't tricky and most ground shipping is still done by them. trains' problems are that unless your warehouse is on a line you have to trans-ship. warehouses used to be on the lines, but we've been ripping them out in our shortsightedness.

there are some fairly inexpensive ways to significantly improve the aerodynamics of trucks (side skirts, duck-tails, wheel covers, tractor to trailer fairings). for some reason very few people have bought them. i chalk it up to ignorance.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

per ton-mile, trains do about 50% of the ground transportation.

The aerodynamics of a truck weighing 90,000 piounds don't matter much. The weight is the major factor. So if you spend $500 on side skirts or whatever, you might save $50 each year on gas. The economics are not there or else they would be commonplace. The trucking industry is very aware of cost/beneift analysis in terms of the economics of trucking. it is not like when you go to buy a car or small truck where fuel economy is impacted by both weight and aerodynamics. Do you buy cars based on hub cap design? I don't think many people do, not even Toyota prius owners (whom often go 85 mph down the highway where I live)

Ya, even the Prius buyers prefer form of function in those hub caps:
http://www.toyota.com/

Also, don'f forget that those skirts use raw materials and require gas to ship them. Jumping to conclusions about their benfit is also ignorance. There is an environmental and economic cost in terms of installing these devices.

As an exmaple, I have had two Chevy 1500s in the past 15 yeasr. One hada small V6 in it. The tanneue cover easily gave me an extra 1 mpg on the highway. No doubt in my mind. This is from colelcting actual metrics on long drives. I did the same thing with my newer V8 that does about 280 HP. Started with a tanneue cover that is now removed due to wear and tear. I was shcoked to find that I am not getting much worse fuel econmy without it. Maybe 0.1 mpg drop in efficiency. Not worth the $200 to replace the cover. So I don't have it anymore. The tannau did impact acceleration at high speed though. I miss that a bit. The aerodynamic benefit was there, but not in terms of MPG.

 

[Scotteq]

Emissions - We clearly could/should be doing better.

Efficiency... I'm a little less convinced there's easy gains to be had here. Fuel is a major (if not "The Primary") cost, and therefore efficiency is already a selling point.




Good point on the Aero stuff - Fairings and wheel covers are economical and very easy to do. Side Skirts represent a safety issue in crosswinds, though, since they turn the trailer into even more of a sail than it already is...

 

[Throckmorton]

Nice unbiased article you posted....

Anyway aero improvements do pay for themselves, which is why big trucking companies and Wal Mart are adding fairings, skirts, and wheel covers to their trucks.

http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/fleets/wal-mart-to-save-300-million-with-hybrids/

 

[dawp]

I have wondered if the designs by Luigi Colani would be all that more efficient

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/under-the-hood/trends-innovations/reinvent-18-wheeler1.htm

that says a 30% increase over conventional designs.

 

[PingSpike]

I don't think this is going to do much about the 50 year old diesel shit mobiles around here that appear to be running on coal based on the tower of foul smelling black smoke coming out of them. Do they require any yearly tests on these anywhere? I know it CA they give you a bunch of crap for emissions on old vehicles.

 

[werepossum]

I recall a study on road tractors and aerodynamics that took highway mileage from 2 - 4 mpg to 8 mpg. Honestly I've long wondered why this wasn't mandated. I have seen more aeroscaping (yeah, I made up a word rather than search for one) in recent years, but it amazes me that more isn't being done voluntarily as fuel is a long-haul trucker's biggest expense.

 

[ichy]

I wonder when they are going to start regulating the amount of fuel consumed / pollution emitted from large container (shipping) vessels. Some of the super-massive ones might be better off with minuscule nuclear reactors like Navy vessels. Although, pound for pound, the container ships are far better than trucks (I would imagine).

I think that if you go by miles per gallon per ton of freight large container ships are extremely efficient. Their biggest environmental problem is that the low-grade bunker fuel they burn is pretty much the nastiest, dirtiest fuel available and makes for very messy emissions.

 

[Thump553]

Anyone getting 2-4 mpg is not going to stay in business. Over the road trucking companies are already hugely concerned about fuel costs, far more so than the average driver. Driver's bonuses and even jobs are frequently based upon acheiving a certain mpg or better, anti-idling rules, speed governors, etc. For example, OTR truck drivers check their tire pressure in every tire every day-when was the last time you checked yours?

It's possible regs could help but market forces have already done quite a lot. I'm leery of this.

 

[ShawnD1]

Nice unbiased article you posted....

Anyway aero improvements do pay for themselves, which is why big trucking companies and Wal Mart are adding fairings, skirts, and wheel covers to their trucks.

:hmm:

 

[bamacre]

I recall a study on road tractors and aerodynamics that took highway mileage from 2 - 4 mpg to 8 mpg. Honestly I've long wondered why this wasn't mandated. I have seen more aeroscaping (yeah, I made up a word rather than search for one) in recent years, but it amazes me that more isn't being done voluntarily as fuel is a long-haul trucker's biggest expense.

It is. I remember Wal-Mart making deals with their suppliers, decreasing the size of their packaging and whatnot to decrease costs.

Quick google search brings up...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9815727/

 

[ElFenix]

per ton-mile, trains do about 50% of the ground transportation.

The aerodynamics of a truck weighing 90,000 piounds don't matter much. The weight is the major factor. So if you spend $500 on side skirts or whatever, you might save $50 each year on gas. The economics are not there or else they would be commonplace. The trucking industry is very aware of cost/beneift analysis in terms of the economics of trucking. it is not like when you go to buy a car or small truck where fuel economy is impacted by both weight and aerodynamics. Do you buy cars based on hub cap design? I don't think many people do, not even Toyota prius owners (whom often go 85 mph down the highway where I live)

Ya, even the Prius buyers prefer form of function in those hub caps:
http://www.toyota.com/

Also, don'f forget that those skirts use raw materials and require gas to ship them. Jumping to conclusions about their benfit is also ignorance. There is an environmental and economic cost in terms of installing these devices.

ignorance of the product's existence, i mean. and probably general fears of how durable the products are.

there's a difference in the form vs. function debate when you're talking commercial vehicles vs. a personal car.

and i'll admit that for intra-urban transit aero factors aren't near the concern as weight, but for inter-urban transit out on interstates at 70 mph, aero factors are a big concern.

 

[hal2kilo]

http://www.dailytech.com/EPA+Airs+P...eavy+Vehicles+for+First+Time/article19980.htm



I imagine this will cause the initial cost of trucks to increase, depending on the implementation, not sure if the MPG saved will pay for itself in the long run or not.

I wonder when they are going to start regulating the amount of fuel consumed / pollution emitted from large container (shipping) vessels. Some of the super-massive ones might be better off with minuscule nuclear reactors like Navy vessels. Although, pound for pound, the container ships are far better than trucks (I would imagine).

One of the bad things about our large country is that it gets tricky dealing with trains / railroads (which are nice for small countries). Thus, we are more reliant on trucks for timely delivery of goods.

I remember several years ago, when I lived in SoCal, that there was a study that found that a large source of air polution in the Long Beach area was from the cargo vessels. Got to believe that burning bunker oil would be hard to clean up.

 

[Throckmorton]

per ton-mile, trains do about 50% of the ground transportation.

The aerodynamics of a truck weighing 90,000 piounds don't matter much. The weight is the major factor. So if you spend $500 on side skirts or whatever, you might save $50 each year on gas. The economics are not there or else they would be commonplace. The trucking industry is very aware of cost/beneift analysis in terms of the economics of trucking. it is not like when you go to buy a car or small truck where fuel economy is impacted by both weight and aerodynamics. Do you buy cars based on hub cap design? I don't think many people do, not even Toyota prius owners (whom often go 85 mph down the highway where I live)

Ya, even the Prius buyers prefer form of function in those hub caps:
http://www.toyota.com/

Also, don'f forget that those skirts use raw materials and require gas to ship them. Jumping to conclusions about their benfit is also ignorance. There is an environmental and economic cost in terms of installing these devices.

As an exmaple, I have had two Chevy 1500s in the past 15 yeasr. One hada small V6 in it. The tanneue cover easily gave me an extra 1 mpg on the highway. No doubt in my mind. This is from colelcting actual metrics on long drives. I did the same thing with my newer V8 that does about 280 HP. Started with a tanneue cover that is now removed due to wear and tear. I was shcoked to find that I am not getting much worse fuel econmy without it. Maybe 0.1 mpg drop in efficiency. Not worth the $200 to replace the cover. So I don't have it anymore. The tannau did impact acceleration at high speed though. I miss that a bit. The aerodynamic benefit was there, but not in terms of MPG.

You're seriously underestimating aerodynamic drag. Once you're at cruising speed on a flat road, weight is irrelevant. The only things that matter are driveline loss, tire rolling resistance, and aerodynamics.

 

[CycloWizard]

You're seriously underestimating aerodynamic drag. Once you're at cruising speed on a flat road, weight is irrelevant. The only things that matter are driveline loss, tire rolling resistance, and aerodynamics.

You're both partially correct. Both drag and rolling friction are important, so aerodynamics and weight will affect mileage at speed. I posted on this at length about two years ago when a bunch of people were arguing about whether driving over 55 mph would yield worse gas mileage.

 

[werepossum]

It is. I remember Wal-Mart making deals with their suppliers, decreasing the size of their packaging and whatnot to decrease costs.

Quick google search brings up...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9815727/

Good to hear. I remember back in the early eighties one of our favored delivery firms switched from road tractors to big Chevy pick-ups with goosenecks. He said his White tractors towing flatbeds got 2 mpg, while the Chevy with the 454 gasoline engine (no good diesels were offered by Chevy or Ford at the time) got 4 mpg. We laughed at 4 mpg, but as the owner said that cut his largest cost in half. Even counting for more frequent rebuilds and replacements he was saving over a hundred grand a year, nothing to sneeze at. (I think he had four trucks, IIRC.)

In urban and built-up suburban areas, accelerating and decelerating that much weight is the biggest energy cost. In those areas, electrical/hydraulic hybrids have a lot to offer, as do battery hybrids.

 

[GroundedSailor]

http://www.dailytech.com/EPA+Airs+P...eavy+Vehicles+for+First+Time/article19980.htm



I imagine this will cause the initial cost of trucks to increase, depending on the implementation, not sure if the MPG saved will pay for itself in the long run or not.

I wonder when they are going to start regulating the amount of fuel consumed / pollution emitted from large container (shipping) vessels. Some of the super-massive ones might be better off with minuscule nuclear reactors like Navy vessels. Although, pound for pound, the container ships are far better than trucks (I would imagine).

One of the bad things about our large country is that it gets tricky dealing with trains / railroads (which are nice for small countries). Thus, we are more reliant on trucks for timely delivery of goods.

I remember several years ago, when I lived in SoCal, that there was a study that found that a large source of air polution in the Long Beach area was from the cargo vessels. Got to believe that burning bunker oil would be hard to clean up.

Ships have started to switch over to Low Sulfur fuel oil when in European waters as of July this year. Similar regulations come into force in 2012 in us waters. That will significantly bring down the pollution from ship exhausts.

While it is true that large ships produce a lot of emissions as a single source, when you divide that by the amount of cargo moved it is far less than trucks or any other mode of transport.

Pound for pound shipping by sea is 10 times more efficient that by road. The US needs to seriously beef up its use of inland waterways if it really wants to improve efficiency of movement of goods.


..

 

[ElFenix]

Pound for pound shipping by sea is 10 times more efficient that by road. The US needs to seriously beef up its use of inland waterways if it really wants to improve efficiency of movement of goods.


..

energy efficiency of freight trains and container ships are similar, apparently.

what we need is better grade separation and routing around cities to facilitate high speed operation.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Ships have started to switch over to Low Sulfur fuel oil when in European waters as of July this year. Similar regulations come into force in 2012 in us waters. That will significantly bring down the pollution from ship exhausts.

While it is true that large ships produce a lot of emissions as a single source, when you divide that by the amount of cargo moved it is far less than trucks or any other mode of transport.

Pound for pound shipping by sea is 10 times more efficient that by road. The US needs to seriously beef up its use of inland waterways if it really wants to improve efficiency of movement of goods.


..

energy efficiency of freight trains and container ships are similar, apparently.

what we need is better grade separation and routing around cities to facilitate high speed operation.

I'd like to see some stats on that. My impression is seaborne freight is much more efficient. I accept inland waterways may not be as efficient.

..

 

[ElFenix]

I'd like to see some stats on that. My impression is seaborne freight is much more efficient. I accept inland waterways may not be as efficient.

..

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/overall-energy-efficiency-and-specific-1
that looks fairly well researched and has the benefit of including inland waterways. of course, to the extent that dirtier fuel is used on ships than trains, then ships are actually understated.

that's in conflict with something i looked at about a month ago where ships and trains were much closer. of course, the density of what's carried matters a lot (trains carrying coal have a much more dense cargo than trains carrying trailers and so are carrying around a lot less dead weight).

 

[werepossum]

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/overall-energy-efficiency-and-specific-1
that looks fairly well researched and has the benefit of including inland waterways. of course, to the extent that dirtier fuel is used on ships than trains, then ships are actually understated.

that's in conflict with something i looked at about a month ago where ships and trains were much closer. of course, the density of what's carried matters a lot (trains carrying coal have a much more dense cargo than trains carrying trailers and so are carrying around a lot less dead weight).

Good info, thanks.

 

[GroundedSailor]

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/overall-energy-efficiency-and-specific-1
that looks fairly well researched and has the benefit of including inland waterways. of course, to the extent that dirtier fuel is used on ships than trains, then ships are actually understated.

that's in conflict with something i looked at about a month ago where ships and trains were much closer. of course, the density of what's carried matters a lot (trains carrying coal have a much more dense cargo than trains carrying trailers and so are carrying around a lot less dead weight).

Based on pure volume and/or deadweight, ships are going to be the most efficient forms of goods movement. Ships also carry dense cargoes like ore. FYI coal is not a very dense cargo. A ship carrying coal can fill up its hold but will not be submerged to her loadlines.

Inland waterway competes with rail. In some cases rail may be more efficient specially if transhipment by truck is not needed at the loading point or at the destination.

Fuel is one of the reasons why ships are cheaper to operate. Ships use Heavy Fuel Oil which is basically residual oil - what remains from crude once all other lighter stuff has been taken out.

Trains use diesel fuel which is a lighter product and much more expensive. Their engines are too small to use HFO.

..

 

[Schadenfroh]

truck drivers check their tire pressure in every tire every day-when was the last time you checked yours?

I inflate to sidewall, always.