Well, I suppose with a rather dickish intention, I was interested in seeing how far the California ZEV/ CARB system would go in regulating and mandating enviro-political Ends rather than primarily using incentives, the free market, technology, and performance-based initiatives based on some kind of socio-economic modelling, per typical modern-society, pro-capitalist values. Part of me was hoping that CA would 'stick to their guns' as it were (not living there, of course), that there would then be a significant economic decline, a likely rush of people and businesses out of the state, a light infusion of pro-enviro-tech industry, and the the state would emerge from the ashes smaller, weaker, leaner, but with a new order intact - possibly economically sustainable. A cautionary tale? An example of the tough enviro-love needed to effect long-lasting system change? Or the more likely: that the current values of carbon emission reduction is such an absurdly alarmist mentality that it took this 'illustration' of reality to show how far more miserable and ineffective it is to be 'green and poor' than 'dirty and rich' -- that the path to moving away from fossil fuels, air pollution, toxins in the environment, etc., is a long hard path that can be effected by making things cleaner while still getting rich, fulfilled, and consumerist. Thank you CA for showing that extreme government oversight seldom works in a rich country.

Because, Bernard, their comparable increase in wealth/ growth/ economic success, if any, has had nothing to do with taking an Industry, any Industry ever, and 'greening it up'. Which in turn has not lead any other State to implement any policy they had which then lead to 'greening up' of any Industry, which then necessarily lead to great wealth. Am I saying that 'any greening' almost always costs money, reduces productivity/margin / competitiveness, and leads to an inferior/ expensive/ diminished product/ service. No. Though it is likely true. Success foregone.
As I say: I am ' ... hoping that CA would 'stick to their guns' as it were...' and defeat these associations and consequently show the rich World that such regulations have minimal economic and societal (however you define that) side effects. Though, when CA does flounder and diminish, that they will persevere and show us the steps they took to overcome such adversity -- or not -- and simply wallow as a state full of overly rich people who care not for the costs of things - like Tesla X owners and continue to 'green virtue signal' until such time that the rest of the US takes the long hard path of economically productive environmentalism - hybrid vehicles, nuclear power, secondary hydrogen infrastructure, etc., etc. It's truly that simple - but I encourage CA to find their Bliss and not fret when the rest of the US turns up their nose.

I just want to breath clean air, not the toxic diesel exhaust, in the densely populated Southern California area were I live that also is nearby the heavy truck traffic that serves the port of LA bringing goods to much of the country. Ideally those profiting from diesel trucks and Jer would be required to breath the polluted highway air unfiltered so we could make fast progress like in the 1970s.

According to a paper published by CARB staff in 2015 (Propper et al., "Ambient and Emission Trends of Toxic Air Contaminants in California." Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 11329−11339), ambient diesel particulate matter (DPM) concentration in the Southern California Air Basin (SoCAB) was <0.6 micrograms/M3 in 2012 (Figure 2) . According to EPA, the average PM2.5 concentration in 2012 in SoCAB was 15.6 micrograms/M3. That would result in DPM accounting for 3.8% of particulate matter at most (not all of DPM is PM2.5).

The mandate to require all HD commercial trucks to be "zero emission" across-the-board is misguided anyway. Renewable diesel fuel results in lower GHG emissions. More than 50% of fuel used in California is renewable diesel.

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2023/08/20230824-lcfs.html

Moreover, electrification of HD commercial vehicles will result in MORE PM2.5 emissions in some applications, not fewer.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c02931 (Figure 4)

Carl,

That graph is based on two assumptions.
The first is that coal represents 29% of electricity generation. That number was 3% in California in 2021, and it's 0% on this day (Oct 10 2024).
The second is that tire and brake wear is similar for BEV and ICE trucks.

The brake wear assumption is obviously invalid for applications with lots of start-stop, like refuse trucks and city delivery, because of regen braking.

The tire wear assumption is also wrong. You often read the over-simplification that "EVs are heavier therefore they wear tires more." This would be true if they used the same tires in the same way. In real life, EV-specific optimizations like higher tire pressures and different compounds compensate for the extra weight. Tire compounds are optimized for a given application, that's why long-haul transport trucks have tires that last for hundreds of thousands of miles. In other words, there is no reason to believe that BEV truck tires wear more than other truck tires.

Carl, can you provide a link? I couldn't find it on the DoE GREET site. I do see that they estimate that BEVs produce less than half the amount of GHGs compared to ICE today (with the dirty US grid) , and less than 25% in 2050, assuming quite substantial improvements in the grid and in ICE tech.

By the way, R&D GREET_2023 has a module in the GREET2 model (Vehicle Cycle), which specifically address HD vehicles (right-most tab labeled "MHDV_TEC Results"). That tab includes emissions from the vehicle cycle. Note that the BEV trucks have FAR higher emissions across-the-board to manufacture the vehicle.

If you take the vehicle emissions into account, it would take about 2.5M miles to offset PM2.5 emissions from manufacturing the truck (long-haul sleeper cab), even if you charge the BEV with 100% electricity from solar 100% of the time, if my calculations are correct.

The Supreme Court ended the chevron doctrine. Neither the EPA nor CARB have the authority for this any more thexports rightly should smack it down. Get Congress to pass specific legislation if you want to ban trucks. Good luck as that's economic suicide and also political suicide. I look forward to the Supreme Court smacking California down they have no right to force other states to adhere to their unelected bureaucrat nonsense. Commerce clause and federal supremacy clause both Trump California bureaucrats.

Roger Brown,

The current feedstock for renewable diesel (seed and waste oils) is quite limited, I agree. However, according to a paper by DOE/NREL staff (https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/58015.pdf, Tables 2 & 3), there's optimistically a POTENTIAL for as much as 546M dry tons/year of sustainable WASTE forest and agriculture biomass by 2030. Using the reported yield for the Fischer-Tropsch process (100 gallons/dry ton - https://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/05/20180504-velocys.html), that's a potential for as much as 55B gallons of renewable fuels. Of course, that would be only if ALL waste biomass was converted into FT diesel, but that's still a substantial feedstock for renewable diesel.

It should be noted that FT diesel is currently one of the least costly alternative diesel fuels, ~ $3.50/gallon, which is competitive with petroleum-based ULS diesel fuel, at sufficiently large annual production.

Algae is also a huge potential feedstock, but is currently not competitive cost-wise.

According to CARB's own data, FT diesel used as a replacement for ULSD would result in lifecycle emissions of GHGs of 295,000,000 g for a combination long-haul truck according to the GREET model. That's even less than current renewable diesel fuel. For comparison, ULSD would produce 1,593,000,000 g GHG, BEV using current California electricity mix would produce 844,000,000 g, in the same application, according to GREET (using its assumptions like a life time of 1,000,000 miles). Even using solar-generated electricity to charge the truck 100% of the time would result in life-time GHG emissions of 343,000,000 g according to GREET.

If the goal in California is to reduce GHG emissions to the greatest degree practicable, why aren't biomass-based diesel fuels being pursued more aggressively, or at all for that matter?

Carl,

I am in favor of research and development efforts to develop ways of obtaining fuel from waste biomass, particularly if an effort is made to co-produce fuel and fertilizer. However, there are plenty of actors lining up for the output of bio-refineries: The aviation industry, asphalt producers, the plastics industry, and so forth. I think there is a genuine question about the scale of economic activity which can be supported by biomass sources.

Could you tell me something more about this $3.50 per gallon cost for FT diesel? I know that you can turn natural gas or coal into diesel fuel via FT. I did not know that there was an established cost number for diesel production from general ligno-celulosic biomass. Can you give me a reference?

Carl,

Thanks for the references.

You're welcome Roger.