SANITY IN GOVERNMENT—AN OXYMORON?

[TDRComm]

SANITY IN GOVERNMENT—AN OXYMORON?
The title needs no further explanation.

However, when you do see a report on “sanity in government” you should sit-up and take notice.

Attention in the classroom: Here are excerpts from an online posting at the Diesel Technology Forum, from executive director Allen Schaffer, that gives us a look into a governmental report on the future make-up of the transportation industry in the US. Schaffer does an excellent job of summarizing the 88-page report which was a collaboration of the Department of Energy; Transportation; Housing and Urban Development; and the EPA. The entire document (excuse me, “Memorandum of Understanding” or MOU) was released on January 17. Here are excerpts from Schaffer’s summary. (Wow, 88 pages down to four paragraphs.)

“If you’re doubting the future for internal combustion engines and sustainable liquid fuels, look no further than the Biden Administration’s National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization: A Joint Strategy to Transform Transportation. The Blueprint is a “whole-of-government approach” to addressing the climate crisis and meeting President Biden’s goals of a 100% clean electrical grid by 2035 and net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

“So much emphasis is placed on electrification that the other important options for decarbonization often get left behind, namely hydrogen and sustainable liquid fuels.

“Sustainable fuels have quite a considerable role to play in this vision of our transportation future. They’re expected to be as significant as battery electric in some sectors. The Blueprint shows hydrogen having a large role to play for long-haul trucking, but also notes that ‘sustainable liquid fuels may also be an option for some Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicles (MHDVs), particularly for remote applications and for legacy vehicles relying on internal combustion engines. (TDR members, make note of this new ‘category’ for our trucks. We are now MHDV owners.) The historically slow turnover rate for many MHDVs means that new technologies may not replace diesel engines for several decades and that disseminating new technology across the MHDV fleet will be a slow process if market forces or policy decisions do not accelerate vehicle turnover. Sustainable fuels could help alleviate this turnover challenge by providing low-carbon solutions that are compatible with existing vehicles.’”

Schaffer continues, “When you think about it, it’s a logical approach to think broadly about transport and mobility, where we work and live, as well as the energy and environmental impacts of our transportation decisions. The Administration sees it as a ‘significant milestone on the path to realizing an improved and sustainable transportation future.’ The 88-page ‘Blueprint’ is definitely a strong start.”

Finally, Schaffer adds a bit of context to the situation, “But if you’ve been part of any construction or remodeling projects, you know that there are original blueprints and then there are ‘as-built’ blueprints. Those reflect the realities of changing conditions and preferences along the way. And that’s exactly how we should think of this National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization; one written in pencil and not in stone.”

MHDV owners, perhaps our future is in a “sustainable liquid fuel” and we can label the fuel with a name that sounds eco-friendly. There it is, a solution to the diesels bad image problem!

 

[GJolicoeur]

Schaffer's take seems quite measured. Research into alternate sources of energy for transportation is ongoing. I have watched the slow development of fuel cells from their first use in our space programs. They would be an excellent source of energy for heavy vehicles and be quick to refuel. The problem has always been getting the costs down and the use of fewer exotic materials.
Toyota has been working on this for quite a while - maybe it'll take one really dedicated manufacturer to develop the production processes that bring the costs into the range of regular vehicle owners.
Hydrogen or biofuels could be used to power the cells with a low carbon footprint.
It would be great to have more choices going into the future.

 

[TDRGuy]

I read an interesting piece on the first automobile(s) and the evolution of the filling station(s).
Owners carried their 5 gallon (re)fuel with them in those pioneer days.

RP

PS it is refreshing to see middle-of the-road conversation on topics like this, rather than the typical media gibberish the divides us into different sides on an issue.

Thanks TDR members.

RP

 

[Tuesdak]

This belongs in the political section, period. I will take the bait.

There is part of the plan above without the mention effect of transportation costs adding to inflation like we have today due to extreme fuel prices. Electric Vehicles, that came before ICE powered vehicles, were kicked to the curb because ICE was simply the low bidder. Lower fuel cost and lower TCO. Something about scraping the plates of the lead acid batteries back in the day. The invention of the electric starter on ICE engines doomed electric vehicles that have nearly the same problems today as they did back then.

We can't even get CNG going despite efforts including "Alternative Fuels*" unlimited access to carpool lanes with only one occupant. (Feds since cracked down on AZ for doing that and ended the unsuccessful program.) Other exotic fuels are just that. *Of course: except BioDiesel.

Hydrogen brings to mind the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster as a visual. High pressure or really cold adds significant danger for the "Lowest Common Denominator" that will find a way to be on the evening news.
After all it's a running joke when people can't figure out where to even put fuel in a ICE vehicle, never check the oil, and not funny: mixing up Gasoline/Diesel/DEF.

I have experimented with BioFuels like B99. I have written about the dangers of it's love of water and growing bugs. These problems are being ignored while BioFuels are being pushed on us by lawmakers. This includes the past summer's allowing alcohols in 'summer' gasoline despite the EPA's protest with environmental reasons.

B99 increases NOx emissions. You know the stuff, NOx, that caused a VW emissions cheating scandal? It's apparently OK to sell a fuel that increases NOx. Like I mentioned this is a political topic when you scratch your head about why we spend so much on Diesel Emissions while being forced/allowed to use a fuel that increases the target bad NOx.

My 2018, a late model by all standards, is at it's BioDiesel limit today with the mandated by law 5% BioDiesel content. I Can Not even get Red fuel for offroad generator use that doesn't have 5% BioDiesel in it from a wholesale fuel distributor in 55 Gal Drums. One change to the law "Let's make it 10%" opens questions about suddenly obsolete, warranty, and what does more BioDiesel % really do to a exhaust stroke fuel injection DPF cleaning design. It takes longer to clean the DPF and lots of BioDiesel, that doesn't evaporate back out of the oil, winds up in the oil. Because BioDiesel doesn't evaporate as well as #2 Diesel in the first place during the injection process.

Meanwhile "The Low Bidder" is watching The USA and other countries bankrupt themselves over low benefit high cost while they ignore these strict environmental regulations.

 

[endoscott]

Ethanol qualifies as biofuel since it derives from corn, right?
‘A national scandal’: how US climate funding could make water pollution worse | US politics | The Guardian
Beware of unintended consequences. More ethanol=more corn=more fertilizer=more runoff into streams and groundwater. So as always there is a tradeoff environmentally. Water is a huge and growing issue nationwide. Might not be too easy to clean up contaminated wells.

 

[Tuesdak]

Ethanol qualifies as biofuel since it derives from corn, right?
‘

Like MTBE if anyone needs a history lesson.

 

[endoscott]

Yep