## Clean Air Program Renews Contract for Truck Replacement

##### 20 July 2005

The Southeast Los Angeles County Gateway Cities Clean Air Program has awarded TIAX a $712,500 contract for the upcoming year to oversee the replacement of older, heavy-duty trucks in the Los Angeles area with newer, lower-emission vehicles. TIAX has done this since 2002, and has coordinated the replacement of approximately 350 trucks with newer vehicles. Through the replacement of the older trucks, it is estimated that up to 4 tons of nitrogen oxides emissions and up to 1 ton of diesel soot emissions are reduced for each truck over its assumed remaining life of five years. In addition, the company will see that trucks purchased during this phase of the program are equipped with special retrofit devices that further reduce diesel exhaust emission levels, and global positioning systems that allow TIAX to track each truck’s activities and gain a better understanding of where emissions are being reduced. The Gateway Cities region is the industrial core of Los Angeles county, and includes the Port of Long Beach, one of the busiest container ports in the United States. The Gateway Cities Council of Governments created the clean air prorgam to provide financial incentives to help reduce air pollution in Southern California. The program is managed by the council in partnership with the Port of Long Beach, the California Air Resources Board and the US EPA. Heavy-duty trucks that serve ports are some of the oldest and dirtiest on the roads today, so they create serious pollution problems for the surrounding communities and their citizens. The Gateway Cities Clean Air Program has provided an effective solution to this problem that benefits both the residents of southeast Los Angeles County and the truck drivers who serve the area. We are extremely pleased to continue our work with this initiative. —Jon Leonard, project manager at TIAX The Fleet Modernization aspect of the program compensates owners of 1986 or older trucks when they buy a 1999 or newer used diesel truck that is more reliable, cleaner, and fuel efficient. An average grant is between$20,000 to $25,000, but will vary depending on how old the truck is and how many miles it has been driven in the past two years. The engines of the old trucks are then destroyed to ensure that they can no longer contribute to air pollution in the region. As an example, a typical used diesel truck costs about$35,000. Under the Clean Air Program, an owner could be reimbursed $25,000 of the purchase price, reducing the cost of the new truck to the grant recipient to only$10,000.

To qualify for the Gateway Cities Clean Air Program, a truck owner must be able to demonstrate that his vehicle has been used commercially in the South Coast Air Basin for the past two years. This 6,600 square mile area includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. They also must agree to continue their work in the South Coast Air Basin for the next five years.

The long-term goal of the Clean Air Program is to replace 3,000 existing heavy-duty vehicles, which represent approximately a third of the pre-1987 truck fleet in Los Angeles County. Funding comes from a collaborative of government agencies at the federal, state, and local levels.

Resources:

If I were a trucker I'd would be looking for a hybrid powertrain for my new tractor. GM is building a hybrid powertrain for buses but not for trucks. Why not??? 18-wheelers use so much fuel each year and spend so much time in traffic jams it would make a hybrid pay for itself in a manner of months.

Depends on the area realy around here truckers are doing 90mph all the time. Also many trucks have to keep the engine running anyway to keep various systems onboard operational.

Hybridisation involves more than just the powertrain. The compressor for the air conditioner could be driven electrically. Power steering could also be an electric system. Replacing the air brake system with an electric system would eliminate problems with leaking hose connection and corrosion from water condensing in the tanks. In the winter ice sometimes would plug in the lines and leave the brakes locked up.

The one thing that no one talks about these days, especially the environmentalists, is how much more fuel the new "eco-friendly" diesel engines consume compared to "older, archaic polluting" engines. A new 2005 diesel engine, compared to an apparently 2004 model, will use approximately 60% more fuel due to the new pollution requirements imposed by the E.P.A. Basically, to meet the new requirements the manufacturers have had to retard engine timing which results in the guzzling of fuel.

Could someone tell me how in the hell these new diesel engines, which consume 60% more fuel compared to pre-2005 units, are more environmentally and economically desirable?

Azure Dynamics has produced a hybrid powertrain for trucks up to class 7.

The Parallel Hybrid Powertrain is designed for use in vehicles weighing 18,000 - 33,000 lbs GVW. The vehicles in this class are typically used for shipping and receiving large quantities of goods.

Here's a link to a photo of their truck:
http://www.azuredynamics.com/pdf/2005%20Super%207%20brochure%20July%2005.pdf

Here's a link to their website:
http://www.azuredynamics.com/fleet_sales.htm

First, I have to point out that the 60% number is way overblown.

Second, on the contrary, there is quite a bit of discussion about the limits to improvements in fuel consumption to accomodate more stringent emissions regulations—and a great deal of effort (time and money) on the part of automakers to work out solutions.

However, you still need to look at the overall LARGE improvement in fuel consumption that a diesel platform provides over a gasoline platform.

Quick example: the New Beetle, Model year 2005. Gasoline model delivers 27 mpg. Diesel model delivers 41 mpg— an improvement of 52% over the gasoline.

And here is the Azure Series 7 hybrid story as an earlier post. :-)

The recent 60% increase in fuel consumption concerns heavy duty truck diesel engines which are typically run at speeds where 100% of horsepower output is realized. Automotive/light truck diesels typically run at about 25% maximum horsepower hence they tend to practically have about 4 times the fuel economy per horsepower when compared to commercial truck engines.

Modern commercial transport diesel vehicles realize MUCH less fuel economy compared to the diesel engines manufactured around 1950. For example, most modern 45 passenger, turbocharged American city buses only get around 1.6 m.p.g.; a 45 passenger G.M. bus circa 1950 equipped with a 100 H.P. 4-71 two cycle diesel and two speed hydraulic transmission will get around 10 m.p.g.

A British G.M. Bedford Division circa 1965 equipped with a 110 H.P. four stroke and five speed gearbox can achieve 18 M.P.G. ( this basic chassis is still manufactured today in India by Hindustan Bedford).

A 100 passenger 2005 model Ashok Leyland Titan Double Decker (essentially a forty year old British Leyland front engine model) equipped with a big, 1 tonne 680 c.i.d., 135 H.P. motor can still get 9 m.p.g.; derated to 90 H.P. the same bus should easily realize 13 m.p.g.

All of these older designs utilize engines not equipped with turbochargers; fit these vehicles with turbochrgers and their fuel economy goes up about 30%!

The fact is that modern production diesel vehicles consume more fuel per ton/mile than 40 year vehicles of similar use and capacity. If you doubt these figures, then read about some of the statistics posted by David S. Lawyer concerning this topic:

http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/energy/fuel-eff-20th-3.html#auto_urban_vs_intercity

Do the math and it's not hard to see how a forty year old bus design will go about 2.25 times farther per gallon of diesel fuel compared to modern E.P.A., "environmentally friendly" certified units.

Most "experts" claim that the new hybrid buses get about 40% better fuel economy than the typical modern urban bus; however, this has never been realized. The primary problem with any vehicle system using batteries is that when new, batteries can be charged at about 80% efficiency, but once a few miles and charging cycles are realized, that efficiency drops to only 20%. In other words, the long term difference between hybrid and conventional fuel economy will only be about 1/4th of the difference as when the vehicles are compared brand new! Plus, that hybrid bus has batteries that will cost tens of thousands of dollars to replace.

In other words, a typical 45 passenger hybrid bus will at most get about 1.76 m.p.g. while the circa 1965 100 passenger Leyland Double Decker can get about 13 m.p.g.

Ah, I see the point you’re making.

Just a couple of quick comments, and working in reverse:

They are seeing about a 40% improvement relative to a baseline diesel fuel consumption of 2.3 mpg--and that was based on 100 buses in service for more than a year on different types of routes--more than enough time to winkle out any anomalies in data.

Your performance would, of course, vary with the type of hybrid architecture chosen.

As to your larger point--turning back the emissions clock to the conditions of 40 years ago isn't an acceptable solution for increasing fuel economy. Far too much has been learned in the last four decades about the health, environmental and associated economic impacts of an overburden of criteria pollutants to make that a reasonable approach.

Fuel economy or emissions control? This requires a Deion answer: Both. Optimizing the one (fuel economy) at the expense of the other (emissions control) just won't fly. (At least, under the conditions we have now.)

Let's say the newly manufactured, circa 1965 Leyland bus equipped with a turbocharger has an improved fuel economy of about 17 m.p.g. versus the hybrid bus that will probably get little better than 1.76 m.p.g. once its batteries go into inevitable efficiency decline.

The 100 passenger Leyland thus gets 1700
passenger*(m.p.g.) and likewise the 45 passenger hybrid gets 79.2 passenger*(m.p.g.)

Translated, the Leyland can carry 21 passengers per gallon of diesel burned versus the hybrid which carries only 1 passenger for the same amount of consumed diesel.
Thus, per passenger the Leyland uses only 4.76% of the fuel that this wonderful hybrid consumes. A 95.24% reduction of fuel per passenger!

No modern E.P.A. certified diesel or diesel/hybrid bus technology will ever achieve such savings, and this old non-E.P.A. certified bus most certainly will put out far fewer emissions than anything modern technology has to offer simple because it uses over 95% less fuel per passenger.

The United States will now never achieve petroleum self sufficiency due do these energy-eating emission regulations. Approximately 50% of the oil we use is imported. If private/commuter vehicles were all converted to diesel, we could see at least 50% reduction of consumed fuel. For commercial vehicles, a similar use of old, efficient technology would see at least, if not more than, another 50 % reduction of consumed fuel. These reductions in themselves would nearly eliminate the oil imports.

Doesn't half the oil burned translate into a 50% reduction of petroleum-based greenhouse gases that all of these government/university/environmentalist windbags are chiming about?

Whether one likes it or not, these environmental regulations will go the way of the dinosaurs within the next ten years or so. American has a big problem known as fiat paper money whose value is going down the proverbial toilet quite rapidly. This country officially went to an economy based upon funny money in August of 1971- next month our fiat money will be 38 years old. In the entire history of this world (fiat money was first used by the Mongol Empire in China around 1250 A.D.), NO fiat currency has lasted more than 41 years until total financial collapse occurred. Right now as we exist total dollar denominated debt is compounding at 40% YEARLY, a rate even worse than that seen prior to the Depression of 1929 (as of this June we're talking about $1 Quaddrillon, or in other words$ 1,000,000 Billion, and next June it will be 40% more!).

Needless to say, petroleum fuel bought with soon to be worthless dollars will eventually be very expensive and in scarce supply, and these E.P.A. regs will most certainly encourage our transportation infrastructure into some sort of collapse.

houston auto transport, car transport, car shipping, vehicle shipping, vehicle shipper, auto transport, car transport, auto transport, car shipping, vehicle shipping, car shipper, vehicle shipper, houston car transport, texas auto transport, houston vehicles transport, texas car shipping, houston vehicle shipping

The comments to this entry are closed.