- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Biden cracks down on diesel trucks in bid to fight climate change, reduce emissions
Posted on 3/29/24 at 11:21 am to udtiger
Posted on 3/29/24 at 11:21 am to udtiger
quote:
I hope that if Trump wins he announces a suspension of all of this bullshite during his inaugural address, pending final determination after 90 days as required by the APA.
And impose similar unrealistic rules for EV. Such as 1000 miles between charges. And ability to fully charge the batteries in one hour with 120v connection.
Posted on 3/29/24 at 11:36 am to AgSGT
quote:The point is that diesel engines of any size are the most practical, efficient and least polluting energy source for transportation. It is a simple math exercise, diesel produces far more energy and does for more work per volume than any viable alternative. Gasoline, LPG, CNG, electric, it doesn't matter. Nothing else comes close.
I'm hoping I didn't miss it, but this isn't targeting smaller personal use diesels is it? They run cleaner than gas vehicles.
Posted on 3/29/24 at 12:19 pm to Bard
quote:
The Biden Administration: fighting inflation by creating higher costs
And restricting output.
Posted on 3/29/24 at 12:20 pm to bizeagle
Oh I completely understand where you are coming from, hence the reason I'm buying the GMC you mentioned earlier. I was just wondering if the article was only talking about tractor trailers and what not or if they are targeting all diesel vehicles
Posted on 3/29/24 at 12:33 pm to alphaandomega
quote:
Such as 1000 miles between charges.
...while towing a big arse trailer.
Posted on 3/29/24 at 12:45 pm to SoggyBottomBaw
quote:
If only that container ship had been electric...
If only all of our government was on that bridge.
Posted on 3/29/24 at 12:58 pm to ksayetiger
They want sails back on ships
Posted on 3/29/24 at 2:30 pm to Lou the Jew from LSU
And 1800kW ain't shite either.
Posted on 3/30/24 at 1:31 am to Auburn1968
quote:
forcing a larger number of trucks and buses to be zero-emissions in that time frame.
This will actually succeed in the "zero emissions" department as it will pull a bunch of trucks off the highway and do nothing but hurt Americans.
This seems like stopping too short though. why don't they make car manufacturers sell all cars for 200 bucks and get 9000 miles to the gallon?
Posted on 3/30/24 at 3:15 am to bizeagle
quote:
The energy content in Diesel fuel is so far superior to alternatives that there should be no argument. Sure diesel smells rough but the efficiency is fantastic. GMC has a 3.0 liter Turbo diesel 1/2 ton pickup that gets in the mid-30s MPG
Never owned a diesel truck, but did have a 2015 diesel Volkswagen Passat (miss the hell out of that thing :banghead ). Great car that got about 46 miles per gallon.
Posted on 3/30/24 at 4:27 am to ksayetiger
quote:
On July 26 2023, COSCO Shipping launched a 700TEU electric container vessel at COSCO Shipping’s No.1 Heavy Industry Shipyard at Yangzhou. The 120 meter long ship has a fully electric drive with 1,800 [kW] of total installed power. It is able to swap battery packs en route, enabling it to covering over 600 nautical miles of routes on the Yangtze River fully electrically without having to moor and recharge.
For those who don’t know, 700 TEU capacity is essentially a large barge.
The Dali, at 10,000 TEU, is considered small in the shipping industry whereas new vessels, especially on the Asia-Euro lanes, are usually 20,000 TEU+.
There is an economy of scale in shipping. The larger the vessel, the less CO2 emissions per box for ocean passage.
Electric ain’t it for these large vessels. LNG, alternative fuels, low-sulphur fuels, and hybrid drive systems are the way to go. Fuel, or bunker, is the largest cost for steamship lines. Efficiency increases of even 1% could mean savings of millions of dollars, and billions of gallons of fuel.
I can’t imagine the immense added weight a vessel would take on for a battery big enough to power it from Shanghai to Los Angeles. The increased draft alone would likely be a problem at multiple US terminals. Our facilities are lacking compared Asian and European terminals.
That’s not even considering the eye watering cost of a battery that size. A container vessel has a life span of up to 30 years, so that’s at least one, likely two new massive batteries each would need. Where are these large vessels going to charge? Marine terminals are like airplanes at airport gates: get the vessels in, complete the import/export ops cycles and get them out as soon as possible. Just like steamship lines don’t have the money needed to invest in those large batteries, terminals don’t have the land or money to provide charging infrastructure. If a vessel sits unusable for many hours to charge, who pays increased rates to cover that cost? Consumers of course.
Even as it relates to terminal ops equipment like the tractors (used to move individual containers within the terminals) there are currently electric options available, but they cost 4x as much as their diesel counterparts, the charging infrastructure needed to charge them is also very expensive and take up valuable terminal space, and you lose use of them for hours on end while they charge — none of that being an issue with the diesel tractors.
All that to say: if the Biden administration starts putting its green tyranny crosshairs on the maritime shipping industry, it won’t be greener and it will be an economic disaster for the US and the US consumer.
Let the steamship lines continue to innovate R&D on better fuels, engine and hull designs to increase efficiency. We sincerely don’t need a create nothing group of bureaucrats getting in the way.
Posted on 3/30/24 at 6:43 am to PsychTiger
I think all government officials should have to fly on electric airplanes. Now, that would be an amazing reduction in carbon emissions (and stupidity).
Posted on 3/30/24 at 7:53 am to ibldprplgld
quote:
Electric ain’t it for these large vessels.
They want to go back to sails.
Posted on 3/30/24 at 8:01 am to TrueTiger
quote:its worse than that. they actually think this is an emerging technology. They should look up the definition of doldrums
They want to go back to sails.
This post was edited on 3/30/24 at 8:02 am
Posted on 3/30/24 at 8:07 am to bizeagle
quote:
GMC has a 3.0 liter Turbo diesel 1/2 ton pickup that gets in the mid-30s MPG and can tow 10,000 lbs.
And will probably be illegal for GMC to sell by 2028.
This post was edited on 3/30/24 at 8:07 am
Posted on 3/30/24 at 8:12 am to Auburn1968
Biden needs to start with himself in making a difference in climate change, the white House can only use biodegradable diapers, diaper bags and wipes for Biden. That should be equivalent emissions to a few thousand 18 wheelers
This post was edited on 3/30/24 at 8:13 am
Posted on 3/30/24 at 8:17 am to Auburn1968
quote:
White House Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi. "By tackling pollution from heavy-duty vehicles, we can unlock extraordinary public health, climate, and economic gains."
How does this policy lead to economic gains? That’s absurd. Actually all of it is, but economic gains?
Posted on 3/30/24 at 8:23 am to Auburn1968
Trump is going to have to dedicate a sizable number of motivated and qualified people simply to undo everything this idiot usurper has been doing for four years.
Posted on 3/30/24 at 8:40 am to Auburn1968
Yuge case was argued before the SCOTUS back in January of this year.
The so-called 'Chevron Doctrine' have been used for decades by unelected, unaccountable, useless bureaucrats to cripple our country.
If the SCOTUS overturns Chevron, it would be a tremendous boost to bringing in an over-bearing federal bureaucracy.
The so-called 'Chevron Doctrine' has been twisted by the left to give all these alphabet agencies tremendous power over the US and our economy.
Many of these clowns who are making tremendous decisions are unelected and unaccountable useless corrupt-crats.
LINK
The so-called 'Chevron Doctrine' have been used for decades by unelected, unaccountable, useless bureaucrats to cripple our country.
If the SCOTUS overturns Chevron, it would be a tremendous boost to bringing in an over-bearing federal bureaucracy.
The so-called 'Chevron Doctrine' has been twisted by the left to give all these alphabet agencies tremendous power over the US and our economy.
Many of these clowns who are making tremendous decisions are unelected and unaccountable useless corrupt-crats.
quote:
It has been nearly 40 years since the Supreme Court indicated in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. After more than three-and-a-half hours of oral argument on Wednesday, it seemed unlikely that the rule outlined in that case, known as the Chevron doctrine, will survive in its current form. A majority of the justices seemed ready to jettison the doctrine or at the very least significantly limit it.
The court’s ruling could have ripple effects across the federal government, where agencies frequently use highly trained experts to interpret and implement federal laws. Although the doctrine was relatively noncontroversial when it was first introduced in 1984, in recent years conservatives – including some members of the Supreme Court – have called for it to be overruled.
LINK
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News