As we begin to get the first glimmers of hope for the resurgence of the North American economy, there are two things we can be certain about: One, the new economy will be significantly different from what we’ve been used to in the past; more government intervention is a certainty, not only in the Obama-led US but even here under a Conservative government. And two, green practices will begin to figure more and more prominently in the new economy.

Trucking both benefited and contributed tremendously to the previous economic expansion. The numbers speak for themselves: The amount of freight carried by for-hire carriers from 1990 to 2003 rose 75%. Trucking was a huge contributor to the ability of manufacturers to trim their inventories by 15% from 1992 to 2005 as they employed JIT delivery strategies. The Canadian tractor-trailer fleet grew by a third since the turn of the century as a result.
Is trucking poised to once again play such a definitive role in driving supply chain efficiency in the new economy sure to rise from the ashes of the currently ruined one? The answer to that we believe depends on trucking’s ability to adjust to and thrive in a carbon-constrained business climate. Learning to understand and profit from government cap and trade programs, answering shipper demands for more sustainable transportation practices and embracing green practices to reduce operational costs will be key ingredients to future success.

Yet at the same time, it’s impossible to ignore the continuing pressure on trucking company profit statements. Investments in environmental projects and programs have to contend with across-the-board cuts in company budgets. This can be a very confusing time for companies trying to reduce their expenses enough to survive the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression while at the same time trying to keep an eye on the future.

It’s with this in mind that we prepared our third annual Green to Gold supplement on transportation practices. In this special report, coming out with your next issue of Motortruck Fleet Executive, you will read about government cap and trade initiatives and their likely impact on transportation; how to effectively evaluate fuel saving technologies; and the financial impact green transportation pioneers are reporting. In addition, we have more information available online at www.trucknews.com.

As we’ve always maintained in producing this annual supplement, if you take the time to do it right, you can turn green into gold.

Permalink | Comments (13)

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The trucking industry has a wonderful story to tell about the incredible progress it has made towards reducing its emissions over the past decade. A new report out of the US suggests the EPA07 engines were particularly effective, going well beyond EPA requirements and reducing emissions by much more than required by law.

According to a release by the American Trucking Associations, EPA07 engines produced 98% less carbon monoxide, 10% less NOx, 89% less particulate matter and 95% less non-methane hydrocarbons than required by EPA under its 2007 diesel engine emissions standards. (I haven’t read the entire 158-page report, but if you wish to do so, be my guest).

That’s a pretty remarkable accomplishment, even if it did come at a tremendous cost. With the next go-round just months from away in January 2010, it appears some fleets are viewing the 2010 emissions standards as an opportunity, rather than a costly burden.

In a sluggish economy with weak freight volumes, it would be easy to postpone the purchase of EPA2010-compliant engines. However, fleets at the recent Private Motor Truck Council of Canada (PMTC) conference have instead said they plan to proceed with new equipment purchases in 2010 and some are even welcoming the latest round of emissions standards.

“We’re not going to skip 2010, we’ll be out there buying trucks next year,” vowed Serge Viola, national fleet manager with Purolator Courier.

That message was echoed by other environmentally-conscious fleets at the conference.

Mark Mostacci, national fleet manager with TDL Group (better known as Tim Horton’s), said his fleet will be ordering 40 new tractors in 2010.

“We’re not going to avoid it, we’re going to embrace it,” Mostacci said of the EPA2010 emissions standards. He said his fleet took a similar approach in 2007 and despite some initial challenges, ended up enjoying better fuel mileage on its 07 vehicles and recouping its investment.

I realize that the opinions of a few industry leaders do not a consensus make. But it’s still good news for truck and engine manufacturers, and perhaps it’s why Volvo decided to roll out its EPA2010-compliant vehicles early. The company announced last week that it is now accepting orders for 2010-compliant engines at the behest of its customers.

“A number of customers have expressed an interest in placing SCR-equipped units in their fleets ahead of 2010,” said Scott Kress, senior vice-president, sales and marketing.

Don’t forget, Volvo’s EPA2010 trucks and engines will come with a non-negotiable $9,600 emissions surcharge and other manufacturers are likely to be in the same ballpark. Yet customers are looking to buy these more expensive vehicles early? What does that say about our industry? Apparently fleets are beginning to see real value in going green, even at a substantial cost. As shippers monitor their carbon footprint all the way through the supply chain, fleets that are embracing the changes foisted upon the industry by the EPA are seeing green in more ways than one.

Permalink | Comments (0)

As much as I like to criticize the Ontario Liberals, I have to say I’m impressed by Premier Dalton McGuinty’s acknowledgement that Ontario must reinvent itself and focus on creating an economy based on sustainable energy projects.

Ontario’s manufacturing jobs are disappearing and they’re not coming back. At the same time, there’s a strong push for sustainable energy projects and the province needs to capitalize on that demand. But if that’s to happen, we need to change our mindset in a number of ways.

There were two recent reports in the GTA media that caught my attention. First, there was the report that recyclables collected in blue boxes in the GTA are being shipped to China where they’re being cleaned, sorted, converted to re-usable materials and then shipped back to Ontario. How counterproductive is that? The article went on to say we simply don’t have the labour force willing to do the dirty work here in Ontario at a competitive cost.

Give me a break. With unemployment rates climbing, surely we have the manpower willing to do this job here at home – granted, at significantly higher wages than Chinese workers are earning. My father runs a unionized plant that competes with non-unionized companies. Obviously, his labour costs are significantly higher than his competitors’. However, he’s ultimately able to provide a cost-competitive product, because they’ve been vigilant about improving efficiency in every aspect of the production process. You can’t tell me Ontarians lack the ingenuity to make it feasible to manage our own recyclables here at home. Yes, our labour costs would be higher but surely that can be offset by reducing costs elsewhere. Start by eliminating the cost of shipping containers full of junk to China and back in the first place.

I know that sorting and cleaning recyclables is not a glamorous job, but you’re out of work you’ve gotta do what you’ve gotta do to eek out a living. I know this. When I first moved to Calgary, I was up at 4 a.m. every morning delivering newspapers I felt I should be writing for. I’m pretty sure if we have the facilities here at home, we can find the workforce that would be grateful to have a job to report to each morning.

The second article was similarly discouraging. Apparently, we’re sending truckloads of organic waste collected through municipal green bin programs to composing facilities in the US. Ontario composting facilities are said to be running beyond capacity or have been shut down due to “odour problems.”

This is another classic example of NIMBY-ism preventing Ontario from creating jobs and lessening its environmental footprint. Apparently nobody wants a stinky old compost facility in their neighbourhood. Think of the jobs that could be created by building and operating incinerators here in Ontario. Also, think of the environmental benefits of dealing with our own waste rather than trucking it down to the States for the Americans to deal with. We must weigh the emissions and fuel consumption created by each of those truck trips against the reduction in methane emissions created by organics in the first place. Are we really any further ahead?

The NIMBYs have also reportedly put a damper on the province’s plans to put windmills along Lake Ontario shorelines. If Ontario really wants to become a leader in sustainable energy development and build an economy based on this emerging industry, then it needs the support of its residents. This is no time for NIMBY-ism. We need to welcome the construction of organic waste processing facilities and windmills here in Ontario. Just don’t put them in my backyard.

Permalink | Comments (3)

As January 2010 draws near, fleet managers and owner/operators will have to decide between two competing technologies to meet EPA2010 emissions standards. By now, most will know that Navistar is going to ramp up exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) levels in order to become EPA2010-compliant, while all other manufacturers are employing the exhaust aftertreatment system known as Selective Catalytic Reduction(SCR).

Each solution has its advantages and each also presents some concerns.

This is Part 4 in a series of blogs that will address some concerns and/or myths about EPA2010 emissions standards and both of the solutions that will be presented to the market. These blogs will be comprised of information obtained through many interviews I’ve conducted on the subject and plenty of additional research.

If you’re a stakeholder in this debate, and wish to comment on any of the points below, feel free to post a comment. Some spirited comments were posted in response to Part 1 and hopefully those contributors will stick around and answer any questions you may have on the subject of 2010 emissions solutions.

In Part 4 of the series, we’ll look at the anticipated costs of diesel exhaust fluid (DEF), the extra ingredient required by SCR systems.

EPA2010 FACT: The cost of DEF is still uncertain

The expected price of diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) is a tricky topic, because like all commodities, its cost will be dictated by supply and demand. However, at this time, the supply and the demand are both yet to be determined.

Make no mistake, there will be plenty of suppliers stepping up to meet the needs of the industry by producing and distributing DEF. In recent weeks: Cummins Filtration announced it would be providing DEF to the trucking industry; Pilot Travel Centres reaffirmed its intent to sell DEF ‘at the pump’; and Terra Environmental Technologies announced a supply agreement with Brenntag North America.

Availability will not be a concern, but what about cost? In the third segment of this blog series, we looked at the potential fuel-savings touted by engine manufacturers using SCR. Much of the actual bottom line savings will hinge on the cost of DEF – and for that matter, diesel.

(It’s worth noting that since that post, Detroit Diesel unveiled its EPA2010 SCR package to media, and insisted its solution will deliver a 3% NET fuel savings, after taking into account the expected cost and consumption of DEF).

But back to price…what exactly is DEF going to cost?

“We can’t predict what prices will be for DEF or even diesel fuel,” admitted Mark Lampert, senior vice-president, sales for Daimler Trucks North America at the recent Technology and Maintenance Council meetings. “(But) DEF prices will not be the problem that one competitor will have you believe.”

That competitor, of course, is Navistar, which has circulated pictures of a jug of DEF it found near Frankfurt, Germany with a price tag equal to US$12/gallon. However, with suppliers and distributors eagerly entering the North American DEF market, it’s very unlikely that DEF will cost anywhere’s near that much here.

The best guesses at the TMC trade show, according to technical editor John G. Smith, were that DEF will cost between $5 and $6 per gallon, with bulk quantities costing less than that. However, he added “Of course, every price is a best guess. Nobody knows what diesel will cost in January either.”

Permalink | Comments (2)

As January 2010 draws near, fleet managers and owner/operators will have to decide between two competing technologies to meet EPA2010 emissions standards. By now, most will know that Navistar is going to ramp up exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) levels in order to become EPA2010-compliant, while all other manufacturers are employing the exhaust aftertreatment system known as Selective Catalytic Reduction(SCR).

Each solution has its advantages and each also presents some concerns.

This is Part 3 in a series of blogs that will address some concerns and/or myths about EPA2010 emissions standards and both of the solutions that will be presented to the market. These blogs will be comprised of information obtained through many interviews I’ve conducted on the subject and plenty of additional research.

If you’re a stakeholder in this debate, and wish to comment on any of the points below, feel free to post a comment. Some spirited comments were posted in response to Part 1 and hopefully those contributors will stick around and answer any questions you may have on the subject of 2010 emissions solutions. I should also note that, while it’s a bit like talking to myself, I added a comment to Part 2. Rather than end the post with a question, I felt it behooved me to ask that very question and I have posted the response. It may be worth taking a look.

In Part 3 of the series, we’ll explore how SCR and Navistar’s EGR approach measure up when it comes to fuel consumption.

EPA2010 FACT: SCR will deliver better fuel economy than EGR

I’m wading into murky waters with this post. I’ve labeled the claim that (Selective Catalytic Reduction) SCR will deliver better fuel mileage than a non-SCR approach as FACT – and it is. It’s one of the strongest value propositions behind SCR. But while even the Navistar camp concedes SCR will consume less diesel, it counters that a like amount of diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) will be required by trucks using SCR, essentially nullifying the cost savings.

Proponents of SCR say their EPA2010 solution delivers anywhere from 2-5% better fuel economy than a non-SCR alternative. A 2-5% fuel savings is no small thing. By Cummins’ estimation, if averaging 6 mpg, at 120,000 miles per year and $4/gallon diesel (it will surely return to that level eventually), every 1% of fuel savings is worth $800 per truck per year. So a 5% fuel savings can add about $4,000 per truck to the bottom line each year. That’s a figure that’s hard to ignore, especially when extrapolated over a fleet.

The fuel savings is mainly due to the fact SCR users can reduce EGR flow rates, recovering some of the fuel economy they lost when they first introduced EGR in 2002 and then boosted EGR rates in 2007. Reducing EGR levels will allow engine manufacturers using SCR to tune their engines for optimum fuel mileage, since they can produce as much NOx as they want in-cylinder, and eliminate it downstream in the SCR catalyst.

With (advanced/massive/mature – call it what you will) EGR, on the other hand, NOx is being reduced in-cylinder so Navistar does not have the luxury of dialing back EGR flow rates - in fact it will increase the amount of gas being recirculated back into the cylinder by about 10%.

SCR backers also point out that NOx plays an important role in the efficient regeneration of the diesel particulate filter (DPF). They say they will nearly eliminate active DPF re-gens (which of course, consume fuel) and have questioned whether an in-cylinder solution will allow for the passive regeneration of the particulate filter.

Navistar officials I’ve spoken with concede that SCR will deliver better fuel mileage than its own solution, if by ‘fuel’ you mean ‘diesel.’ This is where the issue gets a little cloudy. Navistar says that its engine and an SCR engine will consume about the same amount of ‘fluid’ as they travel down the road, when you take into account that diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) will be consumed at about a 2-3% ratio (vs. diesel).

So, while engines with SCR will use less diesel fuel, it’s possible that the consumption of DEF will offset any cost savings. When measuring operational costs, one must consider the cost of DEF. If it will cost less than diesel, it stands to reason that SCR will, in fact, deliver the lower cost of operation. On the other hand, if DEF costs considerably more than diesel, then the fuel economy benefits touted by the SCR camp may be for naught.

In the next installment, we’ll look at the anticipated cost of DEF and its impact on overall cost of operation.

Permalink | Comments (2)

As January 2010 draws near, fleet managers and owner/operators will have to decide between two competing technologies to meet EPA2010 emissions standards. By now, most will know that Navistar is going to ramp up exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) levels in order to become EPA2010-compliant, while all other manufacturers are employing the exhaust aftertreatment system known as Selective Catalytic Reduction(SCR).

Each solution has its advantages and each also presents some concerns.

This is Part 2 in a series of blogs that will address some concerns and/or myths about EPA2010 emissions standards and both of the solutions that will be presented to the market. These blogs will be comprised of information obtained through many interviews I’ve conducted on the subject and plenty of additional research.

If you’re a stakeholder in this debate, and wish to comment on any of the points below, feel free to post a comment. Some spirited comments were posted in response to Part 1 and hopefully those contributors will stick around and answer any questions you may have on the subject of 2010 emissions solutions.

In Part 2 of the series, we’ll dispel the myth that Navistar’s 2010 solution will not be compliant by January.

EPA2010 MYTH: Navistar’s solution will not be EPA-compliant by Jan. 1

Navistar has taken some heat, perhaps undeservedly, for its use of credits to become EPA2010-compliant. It’s true that the tailpipe NOx levels of 2010 International MaxxForce engines may not initially meet the EPA’s stringent requirements. However, the engine will still be ‘compliant’ because Navistar will cash in credits it obtained from the EPA for bettering its previous emissions thresholds.

Navistar earned credits for being cleaner than required during previous rounds of EPA emissions standards. It can now redeem those credits (at a discounted rate) with EPA in order to gradually ramp up to EPA2010 levels, beginning in January, 2010.

Some may suggest this to be cheating the system, but it is really not cheating at all. Navistar is capitalizing on a program the EPA established to reward engine manufacturers that exceeded earlier emissions requirements. There’s nothing underhanded about what the company is doing, and other engine makers have used credits in the past and may well do so again in the future.

When pressed by media on their use of credits during a recent conference call, Navistar reps seemed mildly annoyed that the subject kept popping up. They contend their use of credits has no impact whatsoever on their customers – which is where their priorities lay.

“We always had a plan to take advantage of (the credit program) as a way to phase into 2010 requirements,” Navistar officials explained during the aforementioned conference call.

Everything is being done above board, and to the EPA’s satisfaction, and that’s all customers are concerned about, Navistar contends.

Placing myself in the shoes of a customer, I can see no reason to be worried about Navistar’s use of credits. Provided, of course, that Navistar can maintain the fuel economy and performance of its engines beyond Jan. 1, 2010 as it continues to gradually roll back NOx emissions.

With SCR, what you see on Jan. 1, 2010 is pretty much what you’ll get. Navistar, however, will have further work to do to get down to EPA2010 NOx levels. Can they do so without impacting fuel economy and performance? There’s no reason to believe they can’t, but it’s a question worth asking.

Permalink | Comments (1)

As January 2010 draws near, fleet managers and owner/operators will have to decide between two competing technologies to meet EPA2010 emissions standards. By now, most will know that Navistar is going to ramp up exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) levels in order to become EPA2010-compliant, while all other manufacturers are employing the exhaust aftertreatment system known as Selective Catalytic Reduction(SCR).

Each solution has its advantages and each also presents some concerns. Both camps are ramping up their PR campaigns and will undoubtedly be disseminating some information in the coming months that will be challenged and debated. The PR war is already underway, and will only intensify in the weeks and months ahead. There’s a lot at stake here for all truck and engine manufacturers.

Over the next few weeks, I’ll post a series of blogs that will address some concerns and/or myths about EPA2010 emissions standards and both of the solutions that will be presented to the market. These blogs will be comprised of information obtained through many interviews I’ve conducted on the subject and plenty of additional research.

If you’re a stakeholder in this debate, and wish to comment on any of the points below, feel free to post a comment.

Today, I’ll start by addressing the concern that with only 344 days to go, there’s still no urea (DEF) infrastructure network in place.

EPA2010 MYTH: There’s not enough time to develop the urea distribution network required for SCR

Ever since SCR was first discussed as a potential solution for EPA2010 emissions standards, concerns were expressed about the ability to develop a comprehensive North America-wide distribution network for urea. Urea (now referred to as Diesel Exhaust Fluid – DEF) is the required additive for SCR systems. Housed in a separate tank, the fluid is injected in small doses into the exhaust stream. It then causes a chemical reaction in the SCR catalyst where NOx is broken down into harmless water and nitrogen.

SCR’s detractors initially voiced doubts that DEF would be widely available by 2010, citing the need for massive infrastructure investments. Those concerns may have been valid, if you were envisioning the need for a DEF pump at every truck stop and cardlock across North America. That’s not going to be the case by January 2010, but fortunately for SCR backers, that level of availability will not be required.

DEF will be consumed at the relatively slow rate of 2-3% compared to diesel, engine manufacturers claim. DEF tank sizes will range from about 13-20 gallons, so a truck will likely only require a DEF top-up every 4,000-6,000 miles.

To put it in perspective, a highway truck with a 13-gallon DEF tank averaging 6.5 mpg will be able to travel from New York to Los Angeles and then back to Denver before requiring a DEF top-up, according to Mack Trucks’ David McKenna.

So while you may not find a DEF pump at every filling station by January 2010, it’s hardly a cause for concern. There will be plenty of places along a 4,000-6,000 mile run to find DEF, including all truck and engine dealers that offer SCR engines, many truck stops and other DEF distributors.

The DEF distribution network has begun to take form, and most notably Pilot Travel Centers has committed to offering the fluid ‘at-the-pump’ and in a variety of other sizes. Undoubtedly, as the opportunity to profit from the sale of DEF draws closer, more truck stops will announce their intentions to carry the fluid. Many suppliers have already announced their intention to produce and distribute DEF. Drivers will be able to carry a spare tote jug of DEF along with them, to ensure they don’t run out of the fluid en-route.

As Michael Delaney, senior vice-president of marketing with Daimler Trucks North America points out, “One would have to work pretty hard to run out of DEF.”

Even the harshest critics of SCR seem to have backed off claims that DEF won’t be widely available by 2010 and have turned their attention to other factors, such as its price. But that’s the subject for another blog entry in this series.

Permalink | Comments (7)

In Lou’s most recent blog entry as well as his column in the upcoming issue, he urges us not to dismiss the idea of a carbon tax such as the Green Shift policy touted by the federal Liberals. While it’s never advisable to call out your boss, Lou and I do occasionally have philosophical differences and this one is a biggie.

Call it what you want, ‘green plan’, ‘carbon tax’....whatever, the bottom line is that the Green Shift plan is nothing more than an thinly-veiled fuel tax that will force the trucking industry to shoulder an unfair portion of the load as the Liberals aim to financially punish polluters. Furthermore, the plan is fundamentally wrong, as it targets an industry that a) is already doing everything it can to reduce its fuel consumption, including: slowing down, reducing idling and using nearly smog-free engines; and b) drives this nation’s economy and in doing so, has no alternative but to consume fossil fuels in the process.

I don’t oppose a carbon tax per se. Show me one that reduces emissions without hampering the economy and I’ll consider it with an open mind. What I do oppose is a flawed PR-driven policy (and likely a failed election strategy) like Green Shift, that despite being ‘revenue-neutral’ will cost the trucking industry billions of dollars while driving up the costs of everything that travels by truck. It will also hurt small-time truckers who are already under enormous strain due to unprecedented fuel prices and a shaky economy. How can anyone within the trucking industry support such a plan?

Now that Stephen Harper has promised to slash the federal excise tax on diesel in half (from four cents per litre to two) if re-elected, I’ve crunched a few numbers that may help portray why the Liberal and Conservative policies are, in fact, “polar opposites.”

Green Shift: By Year 4 it will add 7 cents per litre to the cost of diesel. By the Liberals’ own admission, it will cost the average trucker an extra $1,700 per year. (My math suggest it'll be more than $4,000, for what it's worth).

Harper’s tax cut: By Year 4, it will reduce the federal excise tax on diesel from four cents per litre to two.

So by the fourth year, there is a 9 cent/litre swing between policies. Now let’s assume, using very conservative numbers, that you average 40L/100km (7 mpg) and travel 160,000 km (100,000 miles) per year. (I know, most of you work harder than that). In that case, you consume 64,000 litres of diesel per year. Assuming a 9 cent/litre difference between what the Conservatives are promising and what Green Shift will include, you’re looking at a $5,760 differential per truck, per year. That’s $5,760 that will either go into your pocket, under a Harper government, or up in smoke, under Green Shift.

(Yes, the Liberals now promise to invest all the money collected through Green Shift back into green initiatives and tax cuts, but how much do you expect to see as a fleet owner or owner/operator?)

The number is staggering, even more so if you’re a fleet. Extrapolate that number over 100 trucks...or 200...or 900. Bison Transport spends over $6.5 million per month on diesel - what will the difference amount to for them?

As I write in this month’s column, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty recently refused to endorse the federal Liberals, instead urging Ontarians to “Vote Ontario.” I would like to paraphrase McGuinty, and urge truckers to “Vote Trucking.” But whatever you decide, just be sure to get out there and vote!

Permalink | Comments (2)

Over the last few months, the 2010 heavy-duty engine landscape has taken on a vastly different look. First, you have Caterpillar announcing it will not build an EPA2010-compliant on-highway engine for the North American market (yet it will partner with Navistar to build a truck).

Now, you have Cummins changing plans mid-flight and choosing to join the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) camp, which already includes Daimler, Volvo Group and Paccar. This leaves Navistar as the lone SCR holdout – and after extensively criticizing the complexity and uncertainties surrounding SCR, it’s not likely Navistar will make the switch anytime soon.

When the Cummins announcement hit my Inbox first thing Wednesday morning, my initial reaction was surprise. Cummins has been making significant inroads in market share, both in the mid-range and heavy-duty market segments. I figured for them to change course at this point in the game, they must have encountered big-time problems in developing their in-cylinder ‘enhanced EGR’ solution.

However, in a conference call with the media later in the day, Cummins engineers stated this was not the case.

“That product was all set to launch in January, 2010,” said Steve Charlton, vice-president of heavy-duty engineering with Cummins. “The program was performing well, the product was performing well and we were hitting all our targets.”

Cummins decision to abandon its in-cylinder solution was about pursuing optimum fuel economy – it was not due to any technological impossibilities that it encountered along the way.

That bodes well for Navistar, and it also bodes well for customers who want to have an alternative to SCR available to them in 2010. However, the folks at Navistar must be a bit unnerved by the Cummins announcement. The rewards of going it alone could be great – but so too are the risks (look no further than Caterpillar’s ultimate withdrawal from the market after being the only company to really carve its own path in 2002).

Clearly, Cummins shift to SCR has placed a lot of momentum on SCR’s side. However, if there’s a company that isn’t afraid to take a chance, it’s Navistar. Look at the company’s latest product introduction – the unique and incomparable International LoneStar. The truck is a radical departure from anything else on the road today and it seems to have been greeted by the industry with much enthusiasm. Will the same be said about the non-SCR MaxxForce engine in 2010? Only time will tell.

Navistar proved with the introduction of the International LoneStar that it's not afraid to be different.

Permalink | Comments (1)

Neil Young may not be rockin’ the free world as hard as he once did, but he’s still trying to make a difference. However the legendary rocker is using technology rather than music to change the world this time around.

He has teamed up with some bright young scientists to convert his Lincoln Continental into a vehicle that can run on alternative engine sources (likely electricity), ideally getting 100 miles to the gallon (if any fuel is required at all - details are still sketchy).

“Our goal is to inspire a generation by creating a clean automobile propulsion technology that serves the needs of the 21st Century and delivers performance that is a reflection of the driver's spirit,” reads the Web site, www.lincvolt.com. “By creating this new power technology we hope to reduce the demand for petro-fuels enough to eliminate the need for war over energy supplies, thereby enhancing the security of the USA and other nations throughout the world.”

The car has been entered into The Automotive X Prize, which will pit various technologies against each other in 2009 and 2010 during races across the US. Hopefully, the competition will result in various solutions which produce no emissions, use little – if any – fuel and have the potential to be mass-marketed. In a recent blog I wrote that the current fuel crisis will also produce opportunities - opportunities for bright young minds to develop solutions that will lessen our dependence on fossil fuels. This effort, and the Automotive X Prize in general, is a great step towards that goal.

Hopefully, technologies that are developed can be transferred to the trucking industry as well. While the current cost of diesel has this industry against the ropes and on wobbly legs, if the current crisis is the catalyst that spawns the creation of new alternatives to foreign oil, this may well be one of the greatest blessings in disguise we could have asked for.

Permalink | Comments (0)

I just returned from the National Truck Equipment Associations’ Work Truck Show in Hotlanta, Ga. (The city failed to live up to that nickname during my stay, by the way – I even noticed a few snowflakes on Wednesday morning).

Hybrid trucks and alternative fuels dominated discussions at the event. OEMs were surprisingly candid about the costs of hybrid vehicles. Most agreed the up-charge is about US$40,000-$45,000 for Eaton’s hybrid system; tack on an extra US$15,000 if you require an electronic PTO.

With the Canadian and US dollars near par, you can count on the cost being about the same on this side of the border. The major difference, however, is that federal, state and even local tax credits and grants are available in the US, which in some cases can combine to cover nearly 100% of the cost increase.

Rachel Beckhardt, project analysis, corporate partners with Environmental Defense, spoke to the audience about such incentives. In some cases, she reported, there is more money available than there are companies looking to take advantage of them.

In New Hampshire, for instance, there sits a seven-figure pool of incentive money and yet not one trucking company from there has reached out its plate for a piece of the pie, Beckhardt pointed out. What an interesting conundrum.

I would bet that there are a lot of trucking companies here in Canada that would welcome the opportunity to offset some of the up-charge that hybrid vehicles currently carry. Instead, in the absence of incentives, most fleets north of the 49th are sitting on the sidelines and waiting for higher volume orders in the US to drive down production costs. Certainly, not all fleets are guilty of this. Canada has its early adopters as well, especially amongst the courier ranks.

But even with fuel savings of 30% or more and idle-time reductions of as much as 80% in some applications, it takes an awful long time to recover that $40,000 up-front investment. The government has been shelling out incentives for passenger vehicle hybrids, isn’t it time to consider extending these to include commercial vehicles?

Permalink | Comments (1)

Before anyone seemed overly concerned about the state of our planet, Volvo Group made the environment one of its core values back in 1972. Global emissions standards have pushed the company to develop truck engines that are virtually smog-free. However, the company is taking that one step further and attempting to create a truck that can be built, operated and then disposed of with no impact on the environment. It’s a lofty goal, but one the company is aggressively working towards achieving.

Look no further than Volvo Group’s Ghent, Belgium truck plant. The company is aiming to make it the world’s first CO2-free truck plant, and it’s making strides in the right direction. Using wind and solar power combined with bio-electricity, Volvo Group has already achieved a 23% energy reduction at the plant. Its current target is a 50% reduction in C02 emissions and if it wasn’t for a steady increase in production volume, the company would be close to its target today.

Patrick Collignon, managing director of Volvo Trucks Belgium, discussed the company’s progress at the recent European Transport Forum. He admitted he was initially a “non-believer” when Volvo approached him about the project. The target seemed too ambitious, he said, but with the progress that’s already been made he is now convinced it’s an achievable goal. Collignon said Volvo truck plants around the world will be following suit in the years to come and he pointed out Volvo’s New River Valley plant in the US is already experimenting with wind turbines and solar panels.

It still has a long way to go before becoming a completely CO2-free plant, but it’s encouraging to see how much progress is being made at Ghent. CO2 has been largely ignored as truck makers have been focusing their attention on tackling particulate matter and NOx emissions. But it’s very likely that CO2, which is a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, will be the next substance targeted by the EPA. CO2-free trucks are already in operation today. Volvo showcased seven different types of CO2-free trucks at the Forum and more information on the technology will be in the November issues of Truck News and Truck West. All that’s preventing the widespread use of CO2-free trucks is the availability of bio-fuels, the company insists.

Reducing CO2 emissions while constructing the trucks, and then eventually disposing of them, will most likely pose an even greater challenge to vehicle manufacturers. But the groundwork is already being laid out and Volvo Group deserves a nod of approval for being proactive in this regard.

Permalink | Comments (0)

Over the past few years I’ve been telling anyone who would listen about the environmental leaps and bounds being made by the trucking industry. I am always quick to point out that it takes 60 2007 trucks to create the emissions of just one truck built in 1988.

I point out that the insides of smokestacks on new trucks are in some cases corroding because there’s no soot buildup to protect the steel. I tell them about the ‘hanky test’ I performed on several new trucks and how I wouldn’t hesitate to use the same handkerchief I held over the smokestack to wipe my hands with after lunch. I tell them that before long, trucks in some urban centers will be churning out cleaner air than they take in!

It’s a remarkable achievement, and it’s still ongoing with another generation of heavy-duty engine technology slated to hit the market in 2010. This is something the industry should take great pride in, and it should be doing more to educate the public about its environmental accomplishments.

For whatever reason, it seems people who aren’t connected to the industry still perceive trucks as major polluters that are solely to blame for the smog-filled air that hangs like a sickening cloud over the GTA every time there’s a heat wave.

I believe part of the reason the public is either: a) uninformed, or b) uninterested in this great story we have to tell, is that there’s still too much evidence to the contrary. There are still far too many trucks puffing big clouds of black smoke into the air, and I cringe every time I see it happen. It belittles everything the industry has done to clean up its image. The biggest perpetrators of this are older model dump trucks – it’s amazing how many of these trucks built in the 70s and 80s are still in service.

B.C. and California have proposed requiring older model trucks to be retrofitted with emissions-reducing devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts. The cost to the owners of older equipment would be substantial – but so would the environmental benefits. Sixty tonnes of particulate matter can be removed from B.C.’s air each year as a result of that province’s proposal, according to government officials.

I was initially surprised to see the B.C. Trucking Association endorsed the provincial proposal to limit the emissions of older trucks. But on further thought, I can concur with their position. The rest of the industry, most notably the over-the-road sector, has incurred enormous costs to invest in new, environmentally-friendly equipment. Why should companies that continue operating older technology get a free pass? I say: Make the polluters pay!

Let’s rid our roadways of these smoke-belching machines of yesteryear and kill the lingering perception that big trucks are big polluters.

Permalink | Comments (0)

The June 29 version of the Environmental Registry confirmed Ontario Regulation 280/07, a law that prevents companies from burning waste oil for heat as of June 1, 2009.

Truck News has been covering this story in recent months and the coverage has sparked much criticism of the provincial government. This initiative appears to be politically-motivated and the province has provided no scientific evidence that the use of waste oil heaters has a negative impact on the environment.

In fact, in many jurisdictions, waste oil heaters are encouraged as an environmentally responsible use of waste oil. Nonetheless, the province has gone ahead with this nonsensical law, with little regard to concerns voiced by industry.

Consider this, during a comment period, the ministry received a total of 560 comments; 117 in support; 441 not in support; and two neutral. Overwhelmingly, those who contacted the ministry were opposed to the ban.

Here are some of the common themes addressed during the public comment period:

 The proposed regulation does not have any data (e.g., exceeding allowable emissions from space heaters, evidence of detrimental effects to the environment) or any other scientific information to support the government’s decision to ban the burning of used oil in space heaters. The government has not studied the issue in enough detail to make this decision.

 The proposed ban does not include northern Ontario. If there is a risk to human health from the burning of used oil, the ban should extend to the entire province.

 The overall emissions from the collection of used oil across the province, including the re-refining of oil, would far exceed that of the emissions from used oil space heaters. Spills are more likely to occur and damage the environment.

 Used oil pick-up cost will increase if the proposal is put in place and may be illegally dumped to avoid the charges.

 There will be a loss of revenue to small business owners since their heating cost will increase significantly. Also, a significant investment has been made to purchase and install the used oil space heating equipment. Businesses will close due to the incremental operating cost associated with heating a facility.

 The ministry did not actively go out and consult with manufacturers, distributors and owners of space heater before announcing the draft regulation to the public.

 Burning used oil in space heaters can burn as clean as and more efficient than some household oil burning furnaces. Replacement fuel will be less environmentally friendly as the total CO2 emissions associated with its production and transportation will be higher than that of burning used oil in space heaters:
a. Natural gas is not readily available
b. Wood is extremely inefficient.

Despite all these valid arguments, the ministry has gone ahead with the ban. Something to think about with a provincial election looming.

Permalink | Comments (4)

It’s sometimes surprising which topics elicit the most passionate responses from readers. Take for instance the cover story on the June issue of Truck News (Up in Smoke) about the impending ban of waste oil space heaters in Southern Ontario. While truck shop owners are among the largest user groups of the technology, I wasn’t expecting the plethora of responses that story triggered.

I have received many strongly-worded an opinionated phone calls and e-mails since the latest issue hit the street. All but one have expressed outrage at the government decision to ban the space heaters – a move that appears to be politically-motivated. Even a waste oil hauler - a guy who stands to benefit from the ban - called to say he disagrees with it.

Of particular interest was an e-mail from Lloyd Clare, the guy who was responsible for permitting the use of 600-plus waste oil space heaters in Ontario. Along with a colleague, he wrote the book on waste oil heaters (the appendix on used oil in the CSA B1329 oil burner code, more specifically) and says they pose no risk to the environment. He agreed with individuals quoted in the article that the province’s ban is politically-motivated and driven by the re-refining industry.

“Used oil furnaces put out less VOCs than natural gas and burn cleaner than #2 furnaces in terms of carbon emissions because of the superior atomization method. They put out less emissions than a new automobile going down the 401 and about half the ash of a wood fireplace. In general, 12 to 20 times more furnaces can be installed in a building than is required to heat it and still meet emissions standards. The point here is, and I know what I am talking about, this is not an environmental issue - this is corruption of the highest order,” he wrote. You can read his entire letter in the July issue of Truck News, along with some other reader responses.

Unfortunately, it appears attempts to derail the ban may prove unsuccessful. The OTA has been lobbying against the ban and appealing to the MOE to, at the very least, extend a grandfather clause on existing space heaters. But an OTA official told me yesterday that even though there’s plenty of scientific evidence that the space heaters pose no risk to the environment, the province is bound and bent on proceeding with the ban. It boils down to the fact the province feels that recycling oil through a re-refiner is fundamentally more prudent than allowing users to burn the oil themselves for heat. If that’s the case, then no amount of scientific evidence presented by opponents of the ban is likely to change the MOE’s mind on this matter. They’ve dug in their heels. Made up their mind. Science be damned.

For what it’s worth, you can let the MOE know how you feel about the impending ban by calling Minister Laurel Broten’s office at 416-314-6790.

Permalink | Comments (0)

Driving along Hwy. 401 on the weekend, I couldn’t help but shake my head as I passed by literally thousands of pieces of trash along the highway. The ditches are covered in debris tossed aside by inconsiderate motorists who treat the highway like their own personal landfill.

It’s completely disgraceful, and while littering is a year-round problem, never is it as obvious as in the spring when the snow finally melts away uncovering a season’s accumulation of trash. Coffee cups, windshield washer jugs, shopping bags – they’re everywhere along the province’s roads, especially in the GTA.

My girlfriend and I commented on the sad situation as we drove along in shame, embarrassed that visitors from other countries would witness this disgrace. Now, I’m not the tidiest guy, and the interior of my car is a bit of a disaster area as well. But I would never even consider tossing some of the empty coffee cups or water bottles that clutter the floor of my car out the window.

I think it’s time that litter bugs should be reported. If you see someone throwing trash out their vehicle, you should be able to call a number and report the offender. Then, the licence plate should be traced and the owner of the car sentenced to some ‘ditch time’ where they have to clean up after others who are as inconsiderate as themselves. Wasn’t you behind the wheel? Well, be careful who you lend your car to then.

Okay, that may not be the most practical solution, but short of re-introducing chain gangs to clean our ditches, there aren’t a whole lot of options. Something has to be done because we are at risk of losing our reputation of being a ‘clean’ country.

Permalink | Comments (0)

Global warming is here and it’s real. That’s the message expected to be delivered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has been convening in Paris, France this week. Representatives from more than 100 countries are involved in the meetings, which examine scientific research gathered over the past six years. More than 2,500 scientists have contributed to the research. The final report is expected to be released tomorrow.

Global warming is always good fodder for debate. For every person who insists global warming is for real, there’s another person who counters that swings in global temperatures are nothing new – that they’ve been occurring for centuries. Personally, I’ve always straddled the fence on this one. However, it appears we’re at a breakthrough. Word out of Paris is that the much-anticipated document being finalized by the intergovernmental panel will make it obvious global warming is a reality.

The report is said to contain evidence that climate change is being caused by humans burning fossil fuels, and global temperatures could rise between 2.5 F and 10.4 F by the year 2100. Now, I don’t plan on being around in 2100, but if what this group says is true, then I am extremely concerned about the future of our planet and those who will occupy it in the not-too-distant future.

If the panel’s grim predictions are true, 200 to 600 million people could face food shortages and seven million will have to retreat from areas that face coastal flooding within this century. Between 1.1 and 2.3 BILLION people will suffer from water shortages if global warming is not reversed, the panel is expected to reveal. I’m no Greenpeacer, but I find these predictions startling and a little bit depressing! I now know what side of the fence I’m going to plant my feet on.

Those of us in the transportation industry can seek some comfort in the fact we have already taken steps to reduce our environmental footprint by reducing heavy-duty truck emissions and exploring new technologies that further reduce our energy consumption. Hopefully, our efforts to date will have a noticeable impact on the environment and will be mirrored by other industries that haven’t been quite so proactive.

Permalink | Comments (0)