The port of Long Beach in California, as everyone knows by now, is pushing hard to get drayage truckers to turn in their old equipment and upgrade to trucks powered by either 2007-model clean diesel engines or ones using liquefied natural gas (LNG). The question is, however, which of those fuels is the most cost-effective option.

(Photo of a new LNG-powered Kenworth T-800)

Right now, despite the higher premium for 2007 engines (which adds up to $10,000 to the sticker price on a new Class 8 tractor) and the extra cost per gallon for ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel (between five and 10 cents per gallon more), diesel still seems to be the less costly of the two options. Not only is the price tag for an LNG-powered truck far and away more pricey than even a 2007-engine equipped tractor, there’s the cost of the LNG refueling infrastructure to consider, too.

The Diesel Technology Forum (DTF) – a research group headquartered out near my neck of the woods in Frederick, MD – recently published an “LNG vs. Clean Diesel” analysis, looking at the costs the port itself would shoulder to get truckers to switch to one fuel or the other. And yes, while the DTF is indeed completely biased in favor of diesel (I mean, please, the group has ‘diesel’ in its name!) their research is usually spot on.

And Allen Schaeffer, the DTF’s executive director, stresses that in this particular case, it’s not which fuel is better: it’s a matter of which fuel will cost the public taxpayer less to achieve clean air goals. “With cleaner [engine] technology and ULSD fuel, on average new diesel vehicles now have near equivalent or lower emissions compared to LNG vehicles – and LNG vehicles cost nearly twice as much to purchase and require new multi-million dollar fueling station infrastructure,” he said in a recent statement.

(One of five new LNG-powered tractors bought by California power company PG&E)

And as the port of Long Beach harbor commissioners want to replace at least half of current port drayage diesel trucks with ones powered by LNG, the “expenditure of public funds” as Schaeffer noted becomes a big issue.

According to the Port of Los Angeles presentation at the 2008 Faster Freight, Cleaner Air conference February 25 this year, new clean diesel drayage trucks cost approximately $110,000 each, which is significantly less than comparable LNG vehicles at $210,000. And both Ralph Appy, director of environmental management at the port of Los Angeles and Robert Kanter, director of planning and environmental affairs at the port of Long Beach, feel that emissions levels of the two types of trucks are “very, very close.”

Compare 2007 engine emissions data with LNG for example. On average, clean diesel is lower than natural gas in four of five emissions categories – particulate matter, carbon monoxide, methane, and non-methane hydrocarbons, according to DTF’s research. Diesels are just 2.4% percent higher in emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) but in terms of particulate matter, on average, 2007 natural gas vehicles emit levels 233% higher than clean diesels.

The other major hidden cost of natural gas technology is the need for infrastructure, said Schaeffer. Clean diesel vehicles are able to use the current refueling infrastructure while new LNG vehicles require new fueling stations, costing over $5 million each (an estimate worked out by California’s South Coast Air Quality Management District). “It is reasonable to suspect that the economics … will substantially delay cleaner air for the surrounding communities, since for every LNG truck ordered, nearly two clean diesel trucks could be on the road today,” said Schaeffer.

(Refueling an LNG-powered truck requires caution, as LNG must be stored at super-cold temperatures in order to turn natural gas into a liquid. Photo courtesy of PG&E.)

“The Port’s decision is further at odds with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that has maintained a fuel-neutral and competitive playing field approach,” he added. “Clean diesel equipment exists today in the form of CARB [California Air Resources Board] certified new engines and trucks and proven emissions control technology to help clean up older diesel trucks. By focusing on the most cost-effective, quickest route to cleaner air, California will be able to maximize its investment in cleaning up the air faster while keeping vital freight moving.”

For example, last year CARB presented data that showed Level 3 emissions retrofit equipment costs about $30,000 and should reduce pollution in older trucks by 85%. CARB proposed that $25 million in early grant projects for goods movement air quality improvements should be allocated primarily to truck retrofits and replacement due to its low-cost nature. Now, under the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, CARB is authorized to spend a total of $1 billion on air quality improvement projects in California’s major trade corridors – which includes the Los Angeles/Inland Empire Region, the Central Valley, the Bay Area and the San Diego/Border Region. That means a lot more trucks could be retrofitted versus how many LNG-fueled rigs for that money.

Then look at the port grant structure vehicle costs alone: according to the port of Long Beach, grants for LNG trucks will range from $90,000 to $120,000 while clean diesel truck grants could be from $60,000 to $75,000. In addition, cargo owners will further subsidize natural gas vehicle users through exempting LNG vehicles from the ongoing cargo fee, while selectively imposing a $35.00 per loaded 20 foot equivalent container (TEU) unit on clean diesel trucks. The LNG truck approach, the DTF said, has public implications since the ports indicate they plan to use taxpayer funds through the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the state Proposition 1B transportation bond funds to fund technology choices. In effect, said the DTF, California taxpayers will be subsidizing a pre-selected and favored technology – LNG – rather than allowing competitive free market forces to determine the most cost effective technology.

This isn’t to slam LNG, by the way. It’s a fuel whose time is coming for heavy trucks. I mean, with the cost of oil up over $105 per barrel these days, and with diesel costs in excess of $4 at the pump in many spots across the U.S., we need to look at every alternative to petroleum to fuel the trucking industry. The question we need to answer is, should it come courtesy of direct payment of public tax dollars as we grapple with a slowdown in the economy? Is it the best use of tax dollars?

This is also where two big issues collide: cleaner air vs. energy security. The question can also be asked whether clean diesel trucks at the port should be fueled exclusively with B100, a 100% biodiesel fuel blend. I mean, California’s warm weather creates an ideal operating environment for this fuel, made from soybeans and other organic materials, plus there’s no need to build expensive refueling infrastructure. So if we’re going to mandate something that cleans up the air and makes us less reliant on imported oil, shouldn’t biodiesel be the most cost-effective option?

I am not sure where to go on this one. What I do know is that this is a huge effort to radically change the equipment base serving California’s major ports. It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out in the days ahead.

So, I’m sitting in this cavernous meeting room cheek-by-jowl with reporters and fleet managers at the Technology & Maintenance Council’s annual meeting, trying to make sense of what I’m hearing about a series of onboard diagnostic (OBD) requirements that are going to be implemented starting in 2010 through 2019.

Truth be told, 90% of what’s being discussed is going straight over my head at VERY high altitude, like a B-1 bomber going supersonic. All the speakers I’m listening to – such as Keith Doorenbos, manager of electronics and electrical engineering at Kenworth Truck Co., Greg Gillham, Detroit Diesel’s manager-OBD for heavy engines, and Ben Zwissler, chief engineer-OBD systems for Cummins Inc., just to name a few – are talking in a language I can barely grasp.

There are charts and graphs displaying rates of emission flow, electronic degradation, and other extremely technical data that used to give me nightmares back in college as I struggled through the most basic of coursework in physics (how I, a lowly history major, managed to pass at all is still a mystery to me.)

Despite the jargon and the math, however, these experts were explaining something that’s going to have huge ramifications to the trucking industry. Cummins’ Zwissler put it this way: “What’s being required of us is to develop extremely sensitive sensors that can detect excessive NOx [oxides of nitrogen] and PM [particulate matter] at very low levels. That means these sensors are going to be more complex – and thus have a higher risk of faults. That’s going to make the maintenance folk’s life more challenging.”

(Now THERE is an understatement!)

What’s going on is that, starting in 2010, specific rules kick in dictating “good” and “bad” thresholds for the pollutants NOx and PM in the exhaust system of trucks. In 2010, the feds want these “detections sensors” to indicate when those emissions reach five times the acceptable level. In 2013, that threshold gets ratcheted down to three times the acceptable level – with these thresholds continuing to drop through 2019.

(A diesel particulate filter [DPF] that’ll be host to these new sensors)

Yet right now, the industry only has sensors capable of detecting an eight- to 10-time overage – meaning there’s a long way to go in terms of meeting the technological standards the federal government (and California, for that matter) has established.

What these sensors are going to do is trip the “MIL” light on the truck’s dashboard – an acronym for “malfunction indicator lamp.” If the emission levels get too high, that light comes on, telling the engine to start slowing down and eventually stopping over a period of time, since it’s producing too much pollution.

(There’s new things going on engine-wise, too: here’s a video update on Detroit Diesel’s new DD15 engine, which is the platform it’ll use to comply with 2010 emission regulations.)

DD15 Update

Now, you know what comes next – a sensor fails, the light comes on, and BOOM! You have a truck stranded on the side of the road due to an electrical failure. That’s the concern these engineers have and one they are working very hard to eliminate.

“How we detect a sensor failure is going to be crucial,” said Tim Gundrum from International Truck & Engine Co. “They control the emission system, so we’ll need diagnostic strategies that will correct sensor errors yet not allow excessive pollution.”

Now, these rules won’t be applied to all diesel engines at once. Rather, they’ve go into effect by engine “family” in progressive fashion, starting with the lowest displacement and finishing with the big bore models (13 and 15 liter, and up.) Hopefully, that slow application will give the engineers time to correct technological glitches that crop up along the way.

(A view of Detroit Diesel’s new DD15 engine)

But make no mistake: these little sensors are going to complicate things for truckers of all stripes. “These rules are truly game changing,” said Kenworth’s Doorenbos. “We’re dealing with a whole range of issues here, from sensor reliability to diagnostic accuracy and development timelines. It’s going to make things very challenging.”

“Thinking green can no longer be a choice in the business world when looking toward the future. Smart businesses are looking over the horizon, and understand that the risks and opportunity associated with this critical issue must be part of their overall plan to grow and to be successful in the future.” –Lt. Governor John Garamendi, California.

California’s LG made that comment at an event highlighting national grocery chain Safeway Inc.’s move to fuel its entire 1,000 unit trucking fleet with biodiesel. And while this is ostensibly being touted for its clean air benefits – reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 75 million pounds annually, the equivalent of taking nearly 7,500 passenger vehicles off the road each year – there’s also a big energy saving benefit here, as by using B20 in its trucks (a blend of 20% biodiesel and 80% regular diesel) Safeway will be reducing petroleum consumption.

Now, sure, Safeway isn’t cutting diesel use dramatically here, and frankly, if it really wanted to show its “green” chops they’d go to 100% biodiesel (labeled B100) fuel. But that brings maintenance and performance headaches – especially in cold weather – and supplies of pure B100 aren’t easy to get on a national basis.

Still, it’s a start – and frankly, this is the way we’ve got to start approaching energy efficiency efforts not only in trucking but also as a nation. If we can just cut petroleum use a little bit here and over there, we’ll see some big gains over time.

Again, let’s look at Safeway for example. Not only are they switching to biodiesel, the company is participating in the Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay Transportation Partnership, which commits Safeway to establishing a baseline fuel efficiency of its fleet, as well as implement a plan to decrease carbon emissions. Those efficiencies, which include purchasing trailers with large capacity, have saved more than 6.5 million gallons of diesel fuel and decreased carbon emissions by 73,000 tons annually to date.

Under another EPA partnership, Safeway has agreed to purchase 78 million kilowatt hours in the form of wind energy every year for over 50 stores and some 300 fuel stations: the equivalent, according to EPA’s calculations, to avoiding more than 85 million pounds of carbon dioxide, comparable to planting more than 10,500 acres of trees. Another 24 stores are using solar energy to feed their power needs, while other energy-saving strategies – such as installing new energy-efficient refrigeration technology and freezer systems and utilizing LED (light emitting diode) lighting – are further reducing overall electricity usage for the company.

Pursuing all of these energy-reduction efforts simultaneously is also going to save the $40.2 billion grocer some money, too – how much they won’t say, but I think over time as diesel and electricity get more expensive, it could be pretty significant.

And don’t forget one other big plus here – the public relations benefit. “This investment in utilizing cleaner-burning technologies to operate our trucking fleet reflects our strong commitment to protecting the environment,” said Joe Pettus, Safeway’s senior VP for energy operations. “Our customers care about these types of sustainability issues, and we are proud to be a leader in environmental best practices.”

You can be sure Safeway will tout its “green activities” to its customers and the general public as much as possible – and why not? It’s another way to get some more mileage out of its conservation efforts – a strategy trucking could put to good use as well, too, I think.

The title above — “practice what you preach” — is a saying as old as the history books … actually, older than them, since the Roman comic actor Titus Marcinus Plautus reportedly first uttered those sage words around 200 B.C. or so. But they’re taking on new meaning to my mind as the hoopla over “global warming” keeps on growing.

Let me state at the outset that I do believe climate change is occuring and that humankind is indeed adding to it, though not enough to cause the catstrophic scenarios being postulated all over the media these days. Ice ages and warming cycles occurred thousands of years ago on Earth without humanity’s help, thank you very much, so it’s not a surprise that climate change is happening again now.

What’s upsetting is the lack of commitment by all the fomentors of the hoopla to actually doing something about it — especially when it comes to our former vice president and Nobel Prize winner Albert Gore. Sure, his books, speeches, and award-winning film “An Inconvenient Truth” have raised the world’s consciousness about global warming … but he’s not giving up private jet travel, nor his Tennesse mansion, nor eating beef, buying expensive virgin-material suits, driving a car, etc., etc., and countless other “etcs” thrown in for good measure.

In fact, actors at the Academy Awards ceremony in 2006 — when Gore won an Oscar for his film — loudly proclaimed the lavish energy-consuming event had “gone green” … by buying offsets. Not by reducing the number of lights or cameras, reducing air conditioning use, or (heaven forbid!) eliminating the slow moving and high idle limo rides all those Hollywood elites get to attend the big show — oh no! They shoved some money across a table so SOMEONE ELSE could reduce energy consumption on their behalf.

Funny thing about those offsets: Average Joe’s and Jane’s, like truckers, can’t use them. Gotta buy a new emission-compliant truck or eventually face retrofitting your old one. And YOU don’t get a tax break or any form of incentive to do that, either. The big stars still get to build and buy million-dollar estates, complete with energy-sucking hot tubs, gyms, game rooms, you name it … without a tax on their lavish living. Isn’t that what all the complaining about “global warming” is all about? That kind of “livin’ large” culture? Then why aren’t those folks getting a shake down in penalties and extra taxes for their energy profligate and pollution making ways?

I remember back in 2000 when President Bush took all kinds of heat by refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocols, a document countries like France, Germany, and Japan signed, agreeing to set reductions in certain global warming gases such as carbon dioxide. His contention then — and one that rings true today — is that folks like China and India were deliberately left off the list. They had to be given a chance to “catch up” in economic progress before such climate restrictions could be imposed on them. Not that such “catching up” might produce tons of pollution that more than offset any cuts made in the U.S. or Europe … or maybe that would encourge companies to increase outsourcing manufacturing sites to places where compliance with such emission-reducing rules — much less worker safety ones — are limited or nonexistant.

Turns out that NONE of the countries that signed on to Kyoto are actually cutting their emissions anyway … everyone is worried about what such cuts might do to their economies, such as increasing unemployment, raising the cost of living, etc.

The point is that if we REALLY want to combat so-called global warming — which, more importantly, would mean reducing pollution AND energy use, thus reducing our reliance on the volatile Middle East’s petroleum reserves — we ALL have to do it. Can’t cut emissions in the U.S. and let China keep pumping out unfiltered smoke by the ton. Can’t force truckers to buy cleaner trucks while letting the upper 1% keep their private jets, limos, massive homes., etc.

(Truckers aren’t buying those clearner trucks anyways — Class 8 sales are down 50% so far this year, and Peterbilt Motors Co. expects industry-wide Class 8 sales will only reach 185,000 units this year; a far cry from the 325,000 bought by the trucking industry in 2006).

Be nice to see our former vice president step up and change his lifestyle: “walking the talk” as it were, setting an example for the rich and famous to follow. That might convince everyone else to do the same, if they see the leaders of the global warming movement put some of the practices they so eagerly espouse for everyone else in place for their own lives. But I won’t hold my breath.

One of the fastest growing headaches for truckers — among MANY headaches large and small — is the rapid proliferation of anti-idling regulations by state, county, even townships, across the U.S. Whether you agree or disagree with regulatory efforts to restrict idling is almost beside the point — you need to know which locations have what rules or you’ll never be able to stay in compliance from the get go.

That’s where a new website from automotive and heavy-duty truck component supplier Webasto comes in: www.makealeap.org. Now, when you go to this web site, you’re going to see all kinds of stuff promoting anti-idling efforts — maybe going too far for some of you. Again, this is beside the point — what makes this web site so valuable is that it lists what anti-idling laws are already on the books or are being considered, what areas of the country have what type of rules, along with the specifics (5 minutes of idling allowed, 15 minutes, etc.) on a state-by-state basis. It’s easy to use, too — just click on the headline “What is my state doing?” and you’ll be presented with an easy-to-click-on map letting you look at what each state is doing in terms of anti-idling regulations.

Now, the “LEaP” acronym stands for Lowering Emissions and Particulates and the site’s logo incorporates a green frog, because, Webasto says, “in nature the health of frog populations exemplifies the overall state of our environment and therefore is a key theme throughout the web site.” OK, so maybe it’s a little over the top. But the important thing is the information on the site detailing anti-idling rules across the country is rock solid– and that’s worth digging into.

It’s also worth noting the economic cost of idling in terms of wasted fuel — something else this site does quite well. “One example that people should be aware of, especially as schools across the country struggle financially, is statistics show that the 400,000 school buses nationwide burn up a combined total of 7.5 million barrels of oil per year not moving — just idling,” said John Thomas, Webasto’s VP-marketing. “That translates into more than $224 million tax dollars wasted. ”

He added that commercial trucks collectively burn up more than 500 million barrels of oil each year, and in most cases it’s to maintain driver comfort with heat in the winter and air conditioning in the summer. “There are some alternatives that do the same job without idling the engine — alternatives truckers should look at,” he said. It doesn’t cost you anything to look — and it’s worth it just get the 411 on anti-idling regulatory efforts nationwide, that’s for sure.

“Getting there isn’t half the fun; it’s all the fun.” — Robert Townsend

At its core, all the hoopla about “global warming” can get boiled down to two single solutions in this country: we need to use less energy, of which driving less is a huge component. Drive less and we cut way down on pollution levels and the creation of so-called “greenhouse gases,” while being able to give OPEC a much deserved boot in the rear end. That’s because 70% of the oil we use on a daily basis in the U.S. goes to feed our transportation needs alone.

Now, here’s the thing: most of the “driving reduction” we’ll need to do must come from the non-freight side of the ledger. Our freight networks are vital linchpins to the economy, so they can’t be touched by and large: and frankly, trucking’s done it share and then some, with all the anti-idling laws, emission controls, and freight flow efficiency efforts being tackled today.

That’s why Joe & Jane Commuter must now step up to the firing line, because they are the ones with the most predictable routes — and they are the whole reason the term “rush hour” exists in the first place. There’s no reason to drive solo anymore on these trips to and from the office — it’s highly inefficient and, frankly, we’ve got more than enough ingenuity available to address this issue. That’s where “slugs” come in.

Let me explain: I’ve commuted from various points within the Northern Viriginia suburbs into Washington, D.C. and other locations most of my life — even did it to go to high school — by almost every mode available: walking, bicycling, bus, subway, commuter train and (yes) driving. Today, I telecommute by working from a home office, and while that’s been the best option for me, out of all my experiences, many workers can’t do it. That’s why “slugging” may prove to be the most efficient and cheapest way to get to and from the office — a local term that means “ride sharing” everywhere else in the U.S.

Here’s how it works: you pull into a giant parking lot, park your car, and get in line. Drivers pull up and announce where they are going — the Pentagon, 14th and Constitution, etc. — and then several people climb in with them. This enables the driver to use High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and scream into downtown in 30 minutes as opposed to an hour or more crawling along on the traffic-choked local roads and highways. I know, I know: violates the big rule mom always taught you (”Don’t take rides from strangers”) but it works, and works well.

I slugged for almost two years in the late 90s and it worked like a charm. I almost got stranded only once in all that time, whereas I suffered delays by subway and train every week — and getting to PAY for those delays in the process, mind you. This isn’t to say “slugging” is perfect, not by any means. But it’s a far simpler solution than building miles of high-cost rail lines or adding more lanes — with our tax dollars, I might add — and it gets lots of cars off the road at peak times, just when you need to reduce traffic volumes.

“Slugging” also opens a window on the human experience — a strange window at times (one I;ve wanted to nail shut more than once, I’ll admit), but a good one, too. A veteran slug would always take aside a new face to gently explain the “rules” of slugging — because, as a slug, you are the lowest form of commuting life. Slugs aren’t allowed to initiate conversation with drivers, nor can they voice an opinion about the radio station/music selection/etc. Drivers don’t ever make side trips, either, to drop you off at a gas station so you can pick up your car, for instance.

Yet these harsh rules obscure the gallantry among slugs and drivers. For example, a pregnant woman is always passed up to the front on the line and a woman is never allowed to be the last one in line, left alone, day or night — a male slug must stay with her until she gets a ride, or, if stranded, accompany her to public transportation. Though only three riders are necessary to qualify for HOV status, many drivers filled up their cars as much as possible. One woman at the wheel of an airport transport van (God bless you wherever you are!) would always take 15 riders or more if needed. Many drivers that stayed at work late made it a practice to “sweep” pick-up points in the city at night after HOV restrctions were lifted, just to make sure no slugs were left stranded.

There is also, sadly, the downside to slugging. Like the Mercedes Benz driver who plunged along at 100 mph one day, while checking his email. Another used to turn the A/C on full blast for a minute, then off for 10, creating a horrible sauna/ice box ecosystem in her car that gave me a migraine. Some drivers dropped the F-bomb and other profanity without a second thought — one did it while listening to evangelical preaching on the radio, if you can believe it (I rode with him twice — yikes!). Slugs passed the word on such drivers, gradually “freezing” them out of riders.

Then there’s just the plain strange. One driver of a grey Chevrolet Impala tried to enlist my aid in freeing the Aliens our government held at Hanger 18 out in Area 51. “We need to release them before their brethren invade our planet,” he implored me. (I passed the word FAST on this guy).

Still, despite the ups and downs, slugging worked — despite rain, snow, holidays, you name it, I always got a ride close to where I need to go while my commuting costs dropped to near zero. You can’t beat that combination — and it helped reduce emission levels, traffic volume, and energy consumption all in one fell swoop.