PDA

View Full Version : Why do we tolerate this?




Anti Federalist
11-04-2016, 12:42 AM
Get ready to pay more for, well, everything.


And Then They Came For the Big Rigs

http://ericpetersautos.com/2016/11/03/came-big-rigs/

By: eric 3 Nov 2016

No one appears to have noticed this yet. But they will.

Not on the road – or at the car dealership.

At the supermarket.

For openers.

Uncle is “proposing” a “program” (the soft-sell language hides the reality of regulations issued by an unelected bureaucracy – EPA – which will be extremely mandatory) in order to “Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Improve Fuel Efficiency (their exact language, in the EPA’s pretentious Federal All Caps Style) of “Medium, and Heavy Duty Vehicles.”

Translation – sans the All Caps pretentiousness – commercial vehicles such as big rigs that pull freight, cement trucks, flatbeds/rollbacks, busses, 2500 and 3500 series work trucks and so on will have both fuel economy mandatory minimums imposed on them and be subjected to new “emissions” regulations that are based on the idea that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

Because “climate change.”

This will be der untergang of whatever’s left of the already eviscerated economy. I’ll explain.

Until now, vehicles over a certain gross weight – 2500 series and larger – were exempted from federal Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) mandatory minimums (currently set at 35.5 MPG on average for passenger cars) on the basis of the fact that heavy duty trucks are heavy and must be so in order to be fit for any sort of duty.

Which means bigger engines, more fuel used. You can have heavy-duty capability or you can have high fuel economy.

You cannot have both in the same package.

If you need a vehicle capable of pulling say a 15,000 pound trailer, a turbo four cylinder in a unibody chassis connected to a CVT transmission isn’t going to cut it.

For serious work, you need beefy steel frames – and big V8s and diesels. But expecting them to be fuel-sippy is like expecting a 300 pound NFL lineman to subsist on a 2,000 calorie per day diet and still be capable of functioning as an NFL lineman.

But this is precisely what Uncle expects.

Or rather, is going to demand – at gunpoint.

Remember, this is not a “program.” It is a regulatory fatwa – with the weight of Uncle behind it.

And it will not be Uncle who pays the freight (literally).

It will be us – as always.

We – who had no opportunity to vote for (much less against) any of this.

EPA – a federal bureaucracy peopled by unelected apparatchiks who have never received anyone’s consent to be governed – simply decided that the time has come for “…a strong and comprehensive heavy-duty national program (there’s that word again) designed to address the urgent and closely intertwined challenges of dependence on oil, energy security and global climate change.”

Really?

Why is how much fuel we buy and burn – with our money – their business? And “Global climate change”?

Who says?

Why, they do!

Fuhrer befehl, wir folgen!

The arrogance is luminous.

We are looking at a Mike Tyson in his prime one-two punch here. It’s not merely that they will be imposing fuel efficiency regs on heavy trucks – an engineering oxymoron akin to our NFL lineman on a 2,000 calorie a day diet – but also that they will be imposing an “emissions” mandate that cannot be complied with by mechanical/catalytic means.

This is critical to understand.

The EPA knows most people – who know nil about chemistry or physics – will not understand. They will only hear about “global climate change,” which they’ve (mostly) bought into – not knowing just how much they have bought into.

I’ll explain.

It is one thing to make an engine run more cleanly; to reduce its emissions output. That is, emissions properly defined. As they used to be defined: The byproducts of incomplete or inefficient combustion. Things like unburned hydrocarbons (fuel vapors, basically) and oxides of nitrogen which are reactive and cause legitimate/actual problems such as air pollution and acid rain. These emissions can be reduced to practically nil (as they have been) by extremely precise fuel metering and optimization of air-fuel ratios so that the engine burns the fuel more efficiently and by after-treatment of the exhaust gasses, as by catalytic converters.

You can still have large – and powerful – engines. In big – and heavy – vehicles.

But the only way to reduce greenhouse gas “emissions” is to reduce the quantity of fuel burned – because a given volume of gas or diesel, when burned, will result in a given volume of gas. You can scrub the gas so as to render it no-longer-noxious. But you can’t reduce the quantity produced – a key difference that Uncle is well-ware of.

And counting on the masses to not be aware of, until it is a done deal and too late to do anything about it.

No matter how “clean” a vehicle is in terms of noxious/reactive gasses such as HC and NOx, if it produces “x” volume of “greenhouse” gasses – which means carbon dioxide, which is an inert/non-reactive gas as far as all the former criteria – then Uncle is aggrieved.

Put plainly, Uncle is targeting heavy-duty vehicles for termination.

Two things are going to happen.

First, these vehicles are going to become much more expensive to buy and to operate as the compliance costs of Uncle’s fatwas filter down the food chain. We got a taste of this a few years ago when Ultra Low Sulfur Fuel and particulate emissions regs were imposed on big rigs. You may have noticed the price of a steak (and many other things) went up.

A lot.

Truckers paid top dollar to buy Freightliners and Volvos and Macks built pre-fatwa (and so not yet encumbered by the expensive new “emissions” gear, which also had the effect of reducing their fuel economy as a side benefit). But the supply of the pre-fatwa engines was finite and as the new, Uncle compliant rigs – and engines and fuel – supplanted the older equipment, costs increased. Everyone was forced to pay more. The truckers for their trucks and fuel; us for the stuff those more expensive and less-efficient trucks brought to the stores.heretic

But the new fatwas are going to do more than just double down on things.

They may well end things.

As explained above, it is one thing to make an engine run more cleanly. This is a doable (though not cost-free) thing. But to reduce “greenhouse gas emissions” (as they’re politically styled) will not be possible without making heavy-duty rigs (or their engines) smaller and so, less heavy duty.

And much more expensive to buy and operate.

You cannot “clean” C02. All you can do is produce less of it. And that’s possible – given any known technology, at least – only by burning less fuel.

This is engineering and chemistry.

Politics, actually.

Because “climate change” is a shibboleth, a con. A trump card brought out by the same people who’ve been striving for years to resurrect the feudal/company town model that briefly went away in the United States, as the pyramid got wider in the hips and material prosperity for working and middle class people abounded.

That resulted in a content populace that had no use for authoritarian socialism (or authoritarian fascism) and the “leaders” and their “programs” that come with either.

Socialism (and fascism) didn’t sell. Enter environmentalism.

Same con – new label.

If you are skeptical, consider: Will the few at the top of the newly pointy pyramid be materially diminished by these “programs.” Will the “urgent and closely intertwined challenges of dependence on oil, energy security and global climate change” affect them in any way whatsoever?

The question hardly needs to be asked.

We all know the answer.

The real question is: Why do we tolerate it?

Anti Federalist
11-04-2016, 12:53 AM
Uncle mandates that I give up my 45 mpg VW diesel, because of a 4 tenths of a percent difference in NoX emissions.

Which put me in Jeep Grand Cherokee that burns twice as much fuel with twice the emissions.

Assenholes.

phill4paul
11-04-2016, 01:05 AM
Uncle mandates that I give up my 45 mpg VW diesel, because of a 4 tenths of a percent difference in NoX emissions.

Which put me in Jeep Grand Cherokee that burns twice as much fuel with twice the emissions.

Assenholes.

You are a good steward of the planet, comrade.

luctor-et-emergo
11-04-2016, 01:32 AM
Uncle mandates that I give up my 45 mpg VW diesel, because of a 4 tenths of a percent difference in NoX emissions.

Which put me in Jeep Grand Cherokee that burns twice as much fuel with twice the emissions.

Assenholes.

Most people do not understand chemistry. They do not understand that when you burn twice as much fuel, you actually will get, twice as much CO2. Depending on the quality of the fuel and how well you burn it, you will get some other stuff.

There are still a lot of people who do not understand this. I've talked to people who seriously thought their subsidized lightweight shit-car was better for the environment because it used exactly the same amount of fuel as my regular shit car, but it only has 3 cylinders, is called eco, won't last as long as my shit-car and has a throttle that appears based on smoke signals. So, it's an uber-shit car and therefore better for the environment....

NUTS.

Danke
11-04-2016, 03:28 AM
Climate Deniers should be restricted from publication. Internet privileges revoked.

LibertyEagle
11-04-2016, 03:55 AM
To point out the obvious. Hillary as President will make sure something like this gets done. Does anyone doubt that?

nobody's_hero
11-04-2016, 05:44 AM
File under "toilets that don't flush, lightbulbs that don't light, and cleaners that don't clean."

tod evans
11-04-2016, 06:18 AM
Buy old rigs and fix 'em up.

They'll appreciate in value.

Big cam 400 engines are still cheap......

ghengis86
11-04-2016, 07:09 AM
Buy old rigs and fix 'em up.

They'll appreciate in value.

Big cam 400 engines are still cheap......

The Chevy small block has the largest and cheapest aftermarket on the planet. For the price of monthly monitoring (OnStar) or a couple catalytic converters, O2 sensors and other emissions crap on a new car, you can build a 350hp, EMP proof engine and a car/truck to drop it in. Hell, don't even go the junk yard and just buy a crate motor if you have the cash. The funny thing about internal combustion engines is that if you want better performance, you need a better, cleaner, more efficient burn in the cylinder. These asshats at the EPA need to get fucked.

tod evans
11-04-2016, 07:19 AM
The Chevy small block has the largest and cheapest aftermarket on the planet. For the price of monthly monitoring (OnStar) or a couple catalytic converters, O2 sensors and other emissions crap on a new car, you can build a 350hp, EMP proof engine and a car/truck to drop it in. Hell, don't even go the junk yard and just buy a crate motor if you have the cash. The funny thing about internal combustion engines is that if you want better performance, you need a better, cleaner, more efficient burn in the cylinder. These asshats at the EPA need to get fucked.

Absolutely true for gas burners...

I posted specifically about large diesels since that's what the OP was predicated on...

Here's a "big cam 400"

http://selbormotorsinc.com/images/453Motor%20Big%20Cam%20pintado%20004.JPG

asurfaholic
11-04-2016, 07:30 AM
To point out the obvious. Hillary as President will make sure something like this gets done. Does anyone doubt that?

Do you have any proof that trump wouldn't?

asurfaholic
11-04-2016, 07:47 AM
It's no joke that forcing additional costs onto the big rig industry will have a huge impact on almost everything. It's an important thing to realize that pretty much everything gets transported on trucks at some point, and many industries rely on parts getting shipped from multiple sources, shipping to distribution centers, shipping to stores.

A huge business could eat the initial cost, but many would struggle, particularly the smaller companies who can't weather a storm of trying to compete with imports that do not have the same production costs. The local effects would be the large companies closing shop and moving overseas. Increased costs on everything and less jobs and wages earned.

dannno
11-04-2016, 07:50 AM
Do you have any proof that trump wouldn't?

The probability seems much greater, yes.

EBounding
11-04-2016, 08:11 AM
We – who had no opportunity to vote for (much less against) any of this.

What about a Strongly Worded Letter?

ghengis86
11-04-2016, 08:27 AM
Absolutely true for gas burners...

I posted specifically about large diesels since that's what the OP was predicated on...

Here's a "big cam 400"

http://selbormotorsinc.com/images/453Motor%20Big%20Cam%20pintado%20004.JPG

Right. I'll take an old Cummins, even a PowerStroke and burn less petrol for less dollars.

asurfaholic
11-04-2016, 10:32 AM
The probability seems much greater, yes.

I was looking for something a bit more concrete. Has he said anything on the matter either recently or in the past?

fisharmor
11-04-2016, 11:29 AM
Long haul trucking shouldn't even exist.
It only exists because the state actively worked to kill rail while at the same time subsidizing long haul trucking.
I don't agree with killing the trucking industry intentionally, but I do agree with killing it as a side effect, by allowing the market to dictate the least expensive way to haul goods long distance over land, which was, is, and ever shall be, rail.

Anti Federalist
11-04-2016, 02:05 PM
Long haul trucking shouldn't even exist.
It only exists because the state actively worked to kill rail while at the same time subsidizing long haul trucking.
I don't agree with killing the trucking industry intentionally, but I do agree with killing it as a side effect, by allowing the market to dictate the least expensive way to haul goods long distance over land, which was, is, and ever shall be, rail.

You do realize the EPA is doing the same thing to diesel/electric locomotives as well?

That said I wholly agree, rail is by far and away the most efficient form of long haul land transportation.

Also much less of an impact on the land itself, a 20 foot wide railroad right of way can haul as much goods as an eight lane superhighway, at a fraction of the cost of the road.

Anti Federalist
11-04-2016, 02:15 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgy7gusmav8

angelatc
11-04-2016, 02:28 PM
Uncle mandates that I give up my 45 mpg VW diesel, because of a 4 tenths of a percent difference in NoX emissions.

Which put me in Jeep Grand Cherokee that burns twice as much fuel with twice the emissions.

Assenholes.

They made you give it up? How?

angelatc
11-04-2016, 02:29 PM
Long haul trucking shouldn't even exist.
It only exists because the state actively worked to kill rail while at the same time subsidizing long haul trucking.
I don't agree with killing the trucking industry intentionally, but I do agree with killing it as a side effect, by allowing the market to dictate the least expensive way to haul goods long distance over land, which was, is, and ever shall be, rail.

So the government has to subsidize the rail system, and if they didn't it would be cheaper than trucking?

presence
11-04-2016, 02:41 PM
They made you give it up? How?

mostly threat of legal limbo; potential to be in a state of owning something for off road use only

has vw proposed a solution yet?

in the mean time the consumer is given the option to take car value plus punish vw money over car value and walk away

or accept state enforced castration of their purchase


Owners of older models will have to wait a little longer to learn how those cars will be remedied, and how much any recall repair will affect fuel economy and performance. That’s the biggest fear among VW enthusiasts—that the fun-to-drive VWs will drink more fuel and lose some of their acceleration. Time and testing will tell.

A) Take fuck you money
B) Submit to uncle's approved fuel guzzling software

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/guide-to-the-volkswagen-dieselgate-emissions-recall-