Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Saturday July 28 2018, @11:59PM   Printer-friendly
from the older-engine-plan-backfires dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday July 29 2018, @04:10AM (13 children)

    by sjames (2882) on Sunday July 29 2018, @04:10AM (#714220) Journal

    On the other hand:

    The EPA has estimated that for every 10,000 trucks operating over their full service life without emissions controls, 1,600 Americans will die prematurely and many thousands more will suffer from severe respiratory ailments.

    It would suck to be or know one of those people.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 29 2018, @04:31AM (11 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 29 2018, @04:31AM (#714228) Journal

    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)

      by sjames (2882) on Sunday July 29 2018, @04:37AM (#714231) Journal

      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.

      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)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 29 2018, @05:07AM (#714240) Journal

        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)

          by sjames (2882) on Sunday July 29 2018, @06:15AM (#714247) Journal

          *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)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 29 2018, @10:31AM (#714284) Journal

            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

              by sjames (2882) on Monday July 30 2018, @01:56AM (#714566) Journal

              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

          by anubi (2828) on Monday July 30 2018, @09:28AM (#714662) Journal

          I really doubt that you can find any of the old engines with mechanical fuel pumps, and/or naturally aspirated.

          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)

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Sunday July 29 2018, @05:38PM (#714412) Homepage Journal

      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

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 30 2018, @04:44PM (#714808) Journal

        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)

      by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 29 2018, @07:52PM (#714440) Journal

      So, we like global warming now?

      Not relevant. [logicallyfallacious.com]

      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.

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30 2018, @03:26AM (#714591)

        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

          by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 30 2018, @12:39PM (#714688) Journal

          Then pay the working class more.

          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.

          [Strong working class to protect the environment] is a good argument for the environment-conscious ctrl-leftie.

          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

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30 2018, @04:32PM (#714800)

    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.