Green truckin': US finalizes new heavy-vehicle pollution standards

"Performance based and technology neutral" probably means that the standards setters have no clue as to how the objectives can be implemented. School busses should be good candidates for electrification since they have specific routes and can be recharged during the school day.

 

Buses yes; trucks no.

 

Trucks need to be regulated more, for the health of our cities. Biden meets challenges head-on.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ution-still-would-not-meet-air-quality-goals/

Heavy-duty trucks are the largest mobile source of nitrogen oxides, which can react in the atmosphere to form toxic pollutants like ozone and particulate matter. While states can reduce emissions from stationary sources like power plants and factories, they largely lack the authority to regulate emissions from cars and trucks, which fall under the purview of the federal government.

 

"Technology neutral" is an outright fraud which is very common on the left. There's nothing "technology neutral" about CO2 standards. Internal Combustion Engines always produce CO2 (it's roughly 30% of their exhaust with water being another 30% and nitrogen- 78% of the atmosphere- being the remaining 40%). You literally can't get to 0 CO2 in an internal combustion engine- any internal combustion engine. Even little 10cc model airplane engines aren't CO2 free and never will be.

Took a look through the standards to find out how they're doing it and basically they are taking engine out measurements (how HD has always been regulated- compared to LD which has always been chassis regulated. Hint: really big difference) and applying models to come up with pseudo-truck based standards.

One should also remember that EPA's authority will allow them to do exactly the same thing to every class of "vehicle"- combines, cranes, lawn mowers, etc. Literally everything.

This, my friends, is the destruction of our economy and civilization.

 

I see you, and these idiots you quote, are firmly caught up in replaying wonky environmentalist memes from the Clinton era.

Here's a strong hint- SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction) became standard equipment on all diesel engines all the way back in 2010. You know, that Adblue stuff (basically just Urea) that's advertised in every gas station and truck stop in the country?

Yeah, neither PM or NOx is much of a problem anymore.

Wish you folks would stop trying to scare everybody unnecessarily.

 

https://www.lung.org/research/sota/key-findings
The “State of the Air” 2023 report finds that after decades of progress on cleaning up sources of air pollution, nearly 36% of Americans—119.6 million people—still live in places with failing grades for unhealthy levels of ozone or particle pollution.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/truck-pollution-united-states
We find that accelerating adoption of zero-emission trucks powered by clean electricity or clean hydrogen while lowering tailpipe pollution from fossil fuel powered trucks could significantly reduce unhealthy smog and air toxics, cut down climate pollution, and result in significant public health benefits—reducing respiratory illness, hospital visits and air-pollution-related premature deaths.

 

Unfortunately, EV trucks suck at what trucks are supposed to do.

So do we listen to the activist yahoos you quote and let the resulting cratering economy kill everybody, or take our chances that those analysis, based entirely on non-empirical guesswork end up wrong in the end?

I think most folks will go for option number 2.

 

Not necessarily. Lower range, but with fast charging stations, they should be fine. They're starting to talk about charging to 80% in less than 10 minutes.

You're espousing the 1% view. Mine is 99%.

 

No, the term would be "massively lower range" as in "not competitive at all" range.

Ain't happening anywhere in the next century.

Sorry, that's a made up Obama Administration statistic.

But you're welcome to try again.

 

No, the consensus was 97% under Obama. It has grown to 99% in the last few years.

 

Ah, so Barry made up 97% but with Biden inflation it's now up to 99%?

Bet you can't produce a list of scientists that agreed to that or a list of all the actual scientists involved. Both those components would be necessary to come up with that stat.

 

All this will do is make it more expensive to get work done. There arent any electric vehicles suitable for pulling, say, a 10-ton water pump and a couple tons worth of hose and heavy pipe fitting adapters to a jobsite, and if we get taxed extra for using a big 'dirty' truck to do it, we'll just be charging it back to the city (plus 10%, as usual). That's your tax dollars (when its your city) btw.

There's a lot of work that Teslas and Priuses simply can't do, due to the power-weight limitations of current EVs. Does anyone really want that work to be more expensive? ...or do you just not want it be done at all? Those are the two options until they figure out how to make batteries hold more energy with less weight.

 

Consensus claims are worthless Reproducible research is GOLD!


There have been many consensus failures because they didn't follow the "scientific Method" which is why they are wrong so often.

 

That's another Conspiracy theory.

 

This seems like another one-size-fits-all solution to a problem that only exists in some areas.

Wouldn't it make more sense for certain areas that have the high population densities to pass laws only permitting trucks with lower pollution emissions?

It doesn't seem to make good sense or be logical to pass a law based in large part on a problem that mostly only exists in certain areas.

 

The Climateers are doing some real damage in this area.
Biden’s Order: Let There Be Electric Trucks

Wall Street Journal

 

Well, no. There's a long history of consensus errors.

 

LOL, it is clear you need to catch up as there have been many listed, here is a partial list you amazingly missed,


Selected excerpt:


Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases. In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women. There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor—southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result—despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light. Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology—until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading.

The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees. And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on. Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2 . Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.


LINK

 

And so...
Because we can't eliminate 100% of ICE pollution we should never even try?

OK then.

 

The proposed solution, the EV, is a step backward in technology and capability that will cause other problems and do economic damage.

 

Because the introduction of EVs into the mainstream has destroyed the economy, quadrupled pollution and...

PLEASE!

 

CO2 is not a pollutant.

Care to try again?

 

This is a thread about trucking, a sector for which the EV is profoundly inappropriate, and in which widespread (probably forced) adoption of EV's would indeed have injurious economic consequences. Hauling, towing and range are all EV shortcomings.
The EV has a niche role as a local runabout car in two-car households.

 

Evasion is not a successful argument

BUT if you disagree...

Hook one end of a hose up to a diesel exhaust and the other to a breather
and do some breathing
Get back to us with the results.

 

In which you're making the same arguments made about EVs over the last 15 years
OH, and...
the same argument made about the ICE 120 years ago.