SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Among many things that former head of the EPA Scott Pruitt did during his time at the agency was to cease enforcement of emissions standards for so-called "Glider" trucks. Gliders are new heavy truck chassis that have older, less technologically advanced and emissions-compliant engines installed into them.
The Obama administration sought to close the loopholes that allow gliders to be built and sold in significant numbers in an effort to curb their pollution but Pruitt opted to toss that aside in the name of business. We've covered the glider situation in the past, but the big news is that the new acting head of the EPA, a former coal lobbyist, has moved to reinstate the Obama regulations after a court insisted that they be enforced once again.
[...] Many trucking fleets like gliders because they are often cheaper to maintain and run than modern trucks, but the amount of pollutants that they emit can be hundreds of times more than the federal standards would allow. The laws that permitted gliders to be built in the first place were designed primarily to reduce the number of wrecked trucks going into scrap yards, instead giving their engines new homes. That kind of backfired.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Sunday July 29 2018, @12:19AM (13 children)
These things are bad, we all agree. But Trump and Pruitt see the money in them, so they make a loophole. Pruitt's scandals catch up to him, he has to resign. New guy comes in, figgur he's a Pruitt clone. But no, he lets the loophole be closed.
I'm confused. Who bribed who here? Where did the money come from? How did rational reasoning come out of this administration?
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Sulla on Sunday July 29 2018, @12:40AM (1 child)
A lot of Trumps early picks were not good. He picked strong men with free thought that he knew personally and hoped it would work. I think he has a team that while they don't always agree with him they find ways to make it work. Pompeo, Mattis, Kelly, Navarro. Do most suck? Yeah. But i have been very happy with some of the picks, pompeo in particular has really shined and seems to have stepped away from warmongering.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday July 29 2018, @03:44AM
I think he's using the strategy we used for WWII: Hire the generals you like, and the ones who suck get immediately removed and another put in their place until a good job was being done in that region. Looks kinda bad from a personnel perspective, but makes a lot more sense when you think about it as if it were a medication adjustment.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @02:00AM
Think of the horrors if they succeed.
Here's hoping they get run over by their own trucks.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday July 29 2018, @03:10AM (2 children)
Blind squirrels... nuts...
He's not evil, or terribly complex, just kinda random on top of a predictable agenda for a trust fund baby born in the late 1940s.
With that random come some good things once in a while. Plus, most of what comes out of his administration isn't really coming from him at all, but the random collection of people he surrounds himself with, another source of chaos that can be counted on to do something on the good side, occasionally.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday July 30 2018, @12:31AM (1 child)
He's not where near as "not-evil" as you describe him, but I can accept that much of his implementation choices are driven by people he chooses to surround himself with. But he chose to surround himself with them because he was an evil bastard. They're doing the implementation because he's also incompetent.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday July 30 2018, @02:42AM
I'd say it's simpler, and sadder, than that. He chose to surround himself with them because they suck up to his ego, he neither understands nor controls them, they understand and control him
Narcissistic is not evil, evil has a much more focused agenda and doesn't go chasing around like: "oh the poor children separated from their families, we've got to do something about that" (to distract the media from the next stinking black pit of ooze.) The end results can be similar, but I'd rather focus my hate on the incompetence and ignorance of the issues, instead of believing he's specifically out to do bad things - the bad things are just inevitable consequences that he doesn't care about.
It's too early for a 2020 victory lap, but this extreme level of circus foolery is a very good way to damage whatever political group you've associated yourself with - it may help to get the pendulum swinging back in some important areas, at least I hope it will.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday July 29 2018, @03:41AM
Yeah, let's be all Nazi about drinking straws and truck engines while unruly Blacks and Mexicans are allowed to get away with rape and murder because muh Whyte priviledge.
The psychotic liberals here are doubling-down on their madness. It will get worse before it gets better, but it will get better, at least for everybody else besides San Francisco and L.A.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ilPapa on Sunday July 29 2018, @04:34AM (1 child)
Give it a minute. Trump will straighten out this misunderstanding.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @09:09AM
So this time Pres T. will blame .... rolls random global dice .... Bosnia!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by driverless on Sunday July 29 2018, @09:38AM
You've got that somewhat wrong, what it should say is:
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mcgrew on Sunday July 29 2018, @05:31PM (2 children)
It's simple, Pruitt has ties to big oil and he wanted to help the oil industry. The new guy is a lobbyist for the coal industry and doesn't care about oil. Expect a lot of coal regulations to go by the wayside.
Drain the swamp, my ass! The foxes are guarding the hen house with this morality-free sociopathic administration.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday July 29 2018, @10:51PM (1 child)
That can't be right, surely?
I've just read Ethanol-fueled's comment above and apparently it's all the liberals fault.
Oh, and San Francisco is going to fall into the sea (or something).
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday August 02 2018, @03:11PM
My threshold is set to zero, so I rarely see his insanity.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 4, Insightful) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday July 29 2018, @01:43AM (4 children)
I’m a very big person when it comes to the environment. I have won many, many awards on the environment. I’ve actually been called an environmentalist, if you can believe that. I would consider myself an environmentalist in the true sense of the word. And when I picked Andy Wheeler to run my DEP, my Department of Environmental, environmental was a big reason for picking him. The biggest reason was industry -- I always put the American worker first! But also environmental. Believe me.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday July 29 2018, @03:46AM (2 children)
If you want to protect the American worker then repeal that troublesome RoHS so American products can be built to last again.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday July 29 2018, @04:16AM (1 child)
I've said that the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade. Now, you wouldn't think of the European Union, but they're a foe. The RoHS, that's a great example of what they're doing, trade-wise. I can't repeal the European Union or their so-called laws. But I can make deals. And I made a beautiful deal with President Juncker. We're going to work to reduce barriers and increase trade in services, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, medical products, as well as soybeans, soybeans is a big deal. And the European Union is going to start, almost immediately, to buy a lot of soybeans. They love soybeans, they're a tremendous market, buy a lot of soybeans from our farmers in the Midwest, primarily. The European Union wants to import more liquefied natural gas -- LNG -- from the United States, and they're going to be a very very big buyer. We're going to make it much easier for them but they're going to be a massive buyer of LNG so they'll be able to diversify their energy supply. They're sending billions of dollars to Russia for their energy, that's going to be coming to us. Less for Russia, more for America. Grab, grab, grab for America!
(Score: 2, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday July 29 2018, @04:25AM
It's an EU directive adopted by many American manufacturers, just as Facebook and other magic-money entities are adopting European-style "free speech" directives, which of course ban unsanctioned viewpoints.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @04:17AM
Only an American can be so proud of his lard ass.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @03:38AM (17 children)
From the older cnet article:
"Many older truck engines sans emissions devices are capable of producing more power and torque while using less diesel fuel, which provides significant cost savings to fleets."
In other words, the "glider" trucks produce lower carbon emissions. This is what "less diesel" means.
Ah, well, can't have that! The USA was beating the Paris Accord targets despite dropping out, and that just didn't send the right political message. We should toss perfectly functional engines into a junk heap... for the environment. Yeah.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday July 29 2018, @04:10AM (13 children)
On the other hand:
It would suck to be or know one of those people.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 29 2018, @04:31AM (11 children)
Basically, the EPA pulled those numbers out of their asses.
Many of us may not realize that this isn't the 1960's anymore. You can't find a truck today bellowing a column of black smoke 100 feet into the sky. More, you can't find the high-sulfur fuel which was blamed for acid rain, and other problems. You *might* find some highway trucks that still get abysmal fuel mileage, but the fleets aren't running those. (Off road trucks will probably always get terrible mileage - two to five mpg)
For at least the past 25 years, the truck engine manufacturers have been bragging that their exhaust is cleaner than the air pulled in from the atmosphere. That may be an exaggeration, but it's not a huge exaggeration.
I can't see that gliders are all that bad. The worst that can be said about gliders is, for every glider kit sold, one new truck was NOT SOLD.
The EPA really should be held accountable for the COSTS of their edicts. No, I don't mean the EPA should pay all the costs - but they should justify the costs. And, it does cost a lot to impose some of their edicts.
Imagine yourself a small businessman - an owner operator with 20 or fewer trucks in your fleet. Price a new truck, price a glider. Compare the fuel consumption. If your old engine is getting better fuel mileage than a new engine - WTF not put your old engine into a glider? You save thousands of dollars on the power train, you retain your horsepower and torque, and you save money on fuel expenditures going foward. The alternative may well be going out of business.
Of course, to government, bankrupting all those small business people is a GOOD THING. Government would like to have only a hundred or so big fleets on the roads, with each of those fleets enforcing every edict the government thinks of. Independent businessmen are often known to bend, fold, spindle and mutilate the law.
(Score: 5, Informative) by sjames on Sunday July 29 2018, @04:37AM (5 children)
The gliders are built with engines predating those improvements. That's the problem.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 29 2018, @05:07AM (4 children)
I find that difficult to believe. The typical highway truck is five years old, OR NEWER. Many trucking companies refuse to write a contract with trucks older than four years. Some will contract with a five year old truck, IF that truck has already been part of the fleet for the past four years, AND, the maintenance record justifies the new contract.
So - at five years old, companies want to retire the trucks. So, you pull your powertrain, and stuff it into a glider. I can see that you might transplant that power train two or three times, which MIGHT mean a few engines reach the ripe old age of about 20 years.
You know what is far more likely to happen? That old engine does get transplanted once or twice, then it is sold to some other small businessman for use in a sawmill, a generator, or a pump of some kind. I'm aware of five such engines in use by sawmills, within a radius of about 25 miles from my house.
So, again, I insist that someone has been pulling numbers out of their asses, in an attempt to justify restrictions on old engines.
As an exercise in futility, you might want to search for people selling class 8 truck engines that are NOT electronically controlled. I really doubt that you can find any of the old engines with mechanical fuel pumps, and/or naturally aspirated. Those beasts are extinct, and their bones resting in museums.
(Score: 5, Informative) by sjames on Sunday July 29 2018, @06:15AM (2 children)
*R*T*F*A*
A Glider is a new truck body with an old (sometimes rebuilt) engine. Those engines certainly predate modern emissions controls.
Searched rebuilt class 8 engines and First damned hit [adelmans.com] had a mechanical injection N14, engine year 1995.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 29 2018, @10:31AM (1 child)
Turbocharged . . . my fault on that, I put "and/or" between the mechanical pump, and naturally aspirated.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday July 30 2018, @01:56AM
Interestingly, mechanically injected turbodiesels are exactly the trucks that belch soot when the accelerator is pressed. They tend to run rich while the turbo spools up.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Monday July 30 2018, @09:28AM
There is a following for these old mechanical diesels in some truck forums. Such as oilburners.net.
Turns out farmers and ranchers love these things, and are keeping a market alive for aftermarket parts.
When I was looking for a new vehicle, I perused these forums a lot. And came to the conclusion that for me, it was going to be an International Harvester 7.3L IDI, all mechanical, naturally aspirated, no turbo.
Oh the tales of woe I read... and the diesel shop down the street from me was telling me the exact same thing. The new truckers were having fits with their new trucks. Real expensive fits. They get bad diesel? $10,000 repair. I get bad diesel, I sputter until I run it through. Don't dare put veggie oil in the new ones!
If worse comes to worse, rebuild and re-sleeve. The injection pump is the expensive thing, and they rarely fail if you keep the lubricating additives in your fuel. Or, at least, thats what my diesel guy tells me. Even WalMart carries the additives. So does my mechanic. I like the one he carries, which is made by the same company who makes the injector pump... Stanadyne. Both Lucas and Diesel Kleen seem to make a fine product as well.
Maybe one day they make a glider for the venerable old Ford E350 van? Sure would be nice where some people have rust problems. Those old drive trains were built to last. Ford was even referring to them as "The Forever Engine". Mine had 250,000 on it when I bought it four years ago off of Craigslist. I have put another 50,000 on it. Its just as steady as can be. One thing I did have to do though was replace the entire cooling system/HVAC system on the van. After 25 years, the radiator had just about had it with thermal cycling, and it had work hardened itself so that fixing leaks was going to be a major whack-a-mole. And the air conditioner/heater core were corroded as well. Had my mechanic change the whole shebang out. He went over the engine and found nothing even as much as worn. For what I see, I will still be using this thing when the current crop of cars have come and gone. Which is my plan, as I bought this thing with full intention that its the last vehicle I will ever buy. I am an old guy, and I wanted to have something that will carry me to the funeral house, and something I could leave to my nephews. If they see it for what it is, they may indeed get many years of use out of it as well. Its not the sportiest thing on the block, that's fer sure, but it will haul their stuff and trailer all over the country, damn near anywhere they want to go.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday July 29 2018, @05:38PM (1 child)
If you can't keep your business alive under the rules everyone is supposed to follow, you shouldn't be in that business in the first place. Sell the stupid truck and buy a restaurant (which is cheaper than a big rig truck).
I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who can afford a $150,000 tractor trailer when I have friends who live one paycheck away from homelessness.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 30 2018, @04:44PM
You should take a look inside the business sometime. There are a lot of owner operators who live a paycheck or two from bankruptcy, and possibly homelessness. They can "afford" a $100,000 truck the same way many people can "afford" a new car. Four years of exorbitant payments, taken out of their income before they ever even see the checks. Then, as I mentioned previously, IF they actually pay off that high-dollar truck, they can't sign it back on for a new lease, because the trucking company and the finance company are in cahoots. Sign up for another truck, and run your ass off for four years, hoping that you can pay THAT one off without going bankrupt.
Big fleets, on the other hand, purchase those trucks by the dozens, even by the hundreds, without batting an eye.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by requerdanos on Sunday July 29 2018, @07:52PM (2 children)
Not relevant. [logicallyfallacious.com]
Exactly.
While having a glider market causes a gradual reduction over time in emissions as these trucks gradually die and are replaced with new ones (or "glider" trucks new enough for it not to matter, far enough into the future), that's much better than an all-of-a-sudden cessation of the "glider" trucks causing everyone who needs a truck to be more likely to need a much-more-expensive new one.
It's a somewhat comparable situation to the "Cash for Clunkers" [hotair.com] program, which pays to take older cars off the road and out of the market.
The effect of that is that instead of poor people in areas of the U.S. where a car is necessary for transportation (i.e., most areas) being able to buy a clunker for $1000 or even $500, now the starting price on a used car is more likely to be $3000 or $4000, pricing the poorest families (arguably the ones that need transportation the most) right out of the transportation market. I volunteer for an organization that works with folks with low incomes and this is a continual problem that our clients have, but didn't have when there were affordable-but-junky cars on the market.
The overall effect of both programs being that instead of the older vehicles gradually having less and less emissions impact until they have none at all, with essentially no economic penalty, their emissions impact is reduced more suddenly (but still a tiny non-significant difference overall) with a huge economic penalty, especially for certain stakeholders.
Counting the cost of "environmental" programs before advocating for them religiously is an important thing to do, even if those religious greenie advocates claim that it's an evil practice that means you hate children and love global warming.
If even the current U.S. President understands this* more than you do, religious greenies, it's really time to stop and self-examine. Not go out and attack individual cars and trucks. That's like sitting down with a hammer to kill ants--paradoxically ineffective overkill.
-----
* That both protecting the environment and protecting the economy are important and that one should not be done at the deliberate expense of the other: I want to protect our environment. I want regulations for safety. I want all of the regulations that we need, and I want them to be so strong and so tough. But we don't need 75 percent of the repetitive, horrible regulations that hurt companies, hurt jobs, make us noncompetitive overseas with other companies from other countries. - Donald Trump - https://www.businessinsider.com/i-inherited-a-mess-watch-donald-trump-full-speech-cpac-2017-2017-2 [businessinsider.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30 2018, @03:26AM (1 child)
Then pay the working class more.
This is a good argument for the environment-conscious ctrl-leftie. A strong working class will enable us to protect the environment.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Monday July 30 2018, @12:39PM
That might certainly help--a news article last month pointed out that minimum wage workers can't afford fair market rent anywhere in the country, with the exception of 22 counties, all of which have a higher minimum wage due to local/regional law.
Some problems with that, however, are that (1) "Cash for Clunkers" pays people who don't need help the most, not those who do, (2) there isn't any help for low income families in the "Cash for Clunkers" nor the "Get rid of Gliders" programs because the eco-greenies don't think that way (most believe that even negligible environmental changes, as here, should be shoved through regardless of economic consequence), and (3) that wouldn't help the victims of the campaign against Gliders because it would force them to not only pay more for less fuel-efficient trucks, but would have them paying more to the drivers. I am not against paying drivers more, but doing so at the expense of their employers who are getting a double-penalty for just trying to do the right thing isn't a great solution.
I am not sure about that, because I am not sure the "leftie environmentals" who want to control others are looking for good arguments so much as effective ones, good or bad.
I think that a lot of the problem is that paradoxically, there are those on one side who say either that there is no climate change or that it doesn't matter, regardless of what the science shows, and those on the other side predicting calamity and catastrophe, again, disconnected from what the science shows--and both of these groups push their positions with religious fervor, which isn't a great way to get "good arguments" nor good solutions, because any measure is the result of a holy war that represents the scorched earth of the winning side.
I think people should have a right to nutty religious environmental positions, but that the nutty people should stay out of any public discourse whose results might affect others.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30 2018, @04:32PM
lmao! 1600? out of 300+ million? oh the horror! like it wasn't the cancer virueses in their vaccines that finally killed them. it was some fucking truck somewhere. yeah goddamn right.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @04:34AM (2 children)
> In other words, the "glider" trucks produce lower carbon emissions. This is what "less diesel" means.
Bullshit.
Less fuel does not imply less emissions. Or are you saying that all the additional stuff engines have to do to clean up the exhaust can't lower the fuel efficiency?
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Sunday July 29 2018, @07:09AM (1 child)
No, but it does imply less CARBON emissions. Like the GP wrote.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mcgrew on Sunday July 29 2018, @05:41PM
The trouble with the gliders isn't the carbon, it's Nitrogen oxides and other nasty pollutants.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @04:20AM (10 children)
Embedded in the article linked to in TFS there is a link to one of the biggest manufacturers websites [fitzgeraldgliderkits.com]. Reading their bullet points makes it seem as if gliders are a net benefit to the environment in addition to being cheaper to buy and run. Sadly, they don't back up their claims with references to credible sources with actual numbers, but at least their points sound plausible at a cursory glance:
What do you guys think?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bob_super on Sunday July 29 2018, @05:23AM
You could get a 40MPG car three decades ago. But the exhaust was a hell of a lot nastier than the 35mpg car in my driveway.
Not the US, but look at the evolution of EU emission standards, which most engines worldwide have to keep in mind : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards [wikipedia.org]
Also, because I'm not gonna bother to answer Runaway directly: Yes, you do still see many trucks blowing thick dark clouds bigger than the truck itself, at every single traffic light. When I lived in Chicago, that was almost a daily sight on my commute.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Aiwendil on Sunday July 29 2018, @10:48AM (8 children)
I think that the USonians really should argue for better products. And that list of arguments are a great set of reasons why.
1) "12 million pounds" is a bit less than 6_000 tonnes (6kt). For sense of scale the US annual steel use is in the range of 100Mt (40% goes to construction)
2) The reasons why steel is 10% of the worlds carbon emission is due to old technology and the sheer volume of steel being produced.
2b) Take a look at the emissions per tonne of product from the LKAB furnaces* compared to the world standard. (* among the cleanest in the world)
2c) The upcoming (as in - commercial units are up an running since a few weeks ago) generation of steel furnaces are at the point where the carbon in use is the carbon that travel to and from the steel itself.
3) You can pretty much ignore the carbon emission issue by switching from coke to charcoal from managed forests (producing the charcoal is an exotermic process as well, so you can construct the charcoal manufacturing to double a biomass electrical plant)
4) You can make perfectly usuable diesel at close to european diesel prices from wood already.
5) USA really should build a proper electrified railway grid - it would save a lot more fuel.
6) NOx quite frankly only is an issue in high concentrations, and in cities (where the only place are where you will have enough trucks to reach high enough emissions - unless you really botched the infrastructure) you don't want anything but the strictest emission control (due to high concentration of engines and poor windflow).
But if using manufacturing technology that is as old or older than the engines themselves - yeah, then it might be a better choice than to scrap them (but just upgrading a single steel furnace would probably do more for the enviornment)
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday July 30 2018, @12:44AM (5 children)
Well, I disagree with you about NOx emissions. They are significant even at low levels, though I agree that higher levels are worse. As with other poisons, it's not clear that there *is* a minimum dose a which they do no harm. There are levels at which they do no measurable harm, but it would take a cleaner environment than exists with significant population in it to do studies that show there are levels at which it does no significant harm.
That said, the different oxides have different levels at which they are reasonably safe (for any particular measure of reasonably safe). An nitrous oxide may actually be required at some level, though probably the body can generate sufficient for its needs.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Monday July 30 2018, @11:53AM (4 children)
Considering that nitrogen fixing by plants and bacteria gives off NOx as byproducts I'd say that it would be very suprising if there wasn't a safe (well, as safe as clean air (which I admit is harmful)) level somewhere. (the main human-made source for nitric oxide (NO) is agiculture).
I guess we need to figure out exactly what we consider "high concentration" and "low levels", but I assume we agree in principle on that up until a yet-to-be-determined point it doesn't make sense to worry since the worrying will be more harmful :)
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday July 30 2018, @05:07PM (3 children)
You are making the assumption, not, AFAIK, provably wrong, that naturally occurring levels of NOx aren't harmful. This is not guaranteed to be true.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Wednesday August 01 2018, @10:20AM (2 children)
I'm making the assumption that there is a limit where NOx makes less harm than the body's coping mechanism, but I do not touch the "naturally occuring levels" unless I have to (but I do not include agricultural practices in this - so naturally occuring levels hasn't been seen for about 10k years).
The reason why I assume there are safe limits are threefold.
1) NOx generation by life has been around for longer than the modern human, so we are evolved with it around us
2) Nictric Oxide (NO) is a signalling molecule in most (allmost all) known life, and since it is a gas some venting will occur
3) Coping mechanisms in the body tends to go haywire when there is an absence of an adversary (so I'd except an autoimmune reaction in absence of (excess) NOx).
(The entire "aren't harmful" - consider the case of milk to see the problem of trying to define this one (especially the cases of good nutrition vs lactase tolerance))
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Wednesday August 01 2018, @10:21AM
s/lactase/lactose/
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday August 01 2018, @04:40PM
That a defensible presumption, but it's still a presumption. And as you say, those levels can't even be approached.
FWIW, hydrogen peroxide is also used in the body, but it's still harmful. The normal activities of mitochondria are destructive to the cells that they exist within (and possibly also to themselves). Etc. Being a normal part of the body activities is not proof that something isn't destructive, merely that the advantages are usually more important than the costs.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30 2018, @04:22AM (1 child)
What's your point about NOx and cities? That's where most people live. Air pollution kills.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Monday July 30 2018, @11:40AM
That you shouldn't use long haul trucks in cities was my point.
Or put another way - the trucks will mainly spend their time travelling between cities so their NOx profile should be judged differently from a car that will spend most of their time in cities.
(Quite frankly the best would be to have reloading stations in the suburbs where long haul trucks and short haul (eletrical) trucks meet)
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Monday July 30 2018, @01:43PM (2 children)
There are several key pieces of data that merit mentioning here.
1. Many freight contracts specify a 3 or 5 year maximum age for the truck. You can't just keep your 6 year old truck and make a living. It's a $150-350k investment that becomes worthless in 5 years.
1a. Dropping your engine and trans into a glider lets you kit up for 5 more years of work for <$100k
1b. To a single truck owner-operator, a $120k glider is a huge cost savings starting out.
2. There are significant right to repair issues on new trucks. The newest ECU and CCUs are very closed, with dealer-only interfaces.
3. If you don't want electronic logs, a glider is the only way to avoid them.
4. The emissions controls they are touting are particulate filters, a complicated filter system that goes on the exhaust to catch soot and then burn it. These were and are twitchy failure prone expensive systems that had serious reliability issues when they were introduced. The owner operators that are afraid of these are afraid with a good reason.
4a. Non-PF engines get better fuel economy than PF engines. 1MPG may not seem like a lot to a gasser, but when you are filling 100 gallon tanks it makes a big difference.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Monday July 30 2018, @01:46PM (1 child)
1c. If you do keep your 7 year old truck, e.g. for a dedicated or company freight route, you'll get pulled in at every weigh station you cross no matter how good your maintenance is.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Monday July 30 2018, @01:52PM
1c.i "Pulling in", a friendly state trooper or DOT inspector will flip a switch that turns the green light at the weigh station into a red arrow. You follow the arrow, park, get out of your truck, walk inside, they scrutinize your logbook for compliance violations, then send you back to the truck. Then you sit there for however long it takes them to saunter out and "inspect" the truck. If they find a lightbulb out or a brake out of adjustment, or a drop of oil on the sidewall of a tire you are stuck there unable to leave except on a tow hook until a mechanic comes out and fixes it.