judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
Originally posted by: Vic
And that is bad... how? In this case, efficiency is good for the environment and our resources. Score one for capitalism.Originally posted by: Acanthus
Bingo, they are playing the "energy savings campaign" to look like they are trying to save the whales and the ozone layer, when in fact its just to become even more brutally competitive and efficient on costs.Originally posted by: Astaroth33
It's not that Walmart really gives a rat's ass about greenhouse gasses (though it makes for good publicity), it's that they want to save money on fuel costs. Either way, it's a good thing. However, because it benefits Walmart, I guess it's a bad thing, because Walmart is evil.
*head explodes*
Originally posted by: rancherlee
13mpg ISN'T going to happen by 2015 like they hope, the most areodynamic rigs with the most fuel effecient engines are in the high 7's for mileage currently, a jump from 7.75 to 13.5 is impossible in only 8 years (I AM a Caterpillar Mechanic and I love to keep up with new truck technologies)
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I imagine if WalMart sourced more materials in America (and locally) they could dramatically reduce shipping costs. Naturally, they might have to pay decent prices to a multitude of small suppliers but it would still have the practical effect of HUGE cuts in emissions. Not to mention a big reduction in our demand for diesel which would lower the cost for all other consumers (farmers, other industry, and cool automobiles).
linkageOriginally posted by: techs
People. Pay attenton.
Walmart has not invented a truck that gets twice the mileage.
They set a goal to get twice the mileage.
I set lots of goals.
Setting a goal is easy.
I will BET you that Walmart doesn't double new truck efficiency by 2015.
What a joke that anyone would even take it seriously.
On its Web site, Wal-Mart boasts of its ?experimental truck,? which represents an attempt at fuel economy and environmental stewardship. One fuel-efficient truck prototype exists, and Wal-Mart said changes will be implemented beginning with its new truck purchases in 2007. The truck features trailer side skirts, super single tires, an aerodynamic tractor, tag axles and auxiliary power units.
Wal-Mart has released few details on what it will cost to replace its fleet, but the company could spend as much as $112,000 per truck, according to truck sales representatives. That?s about $12,000 more than a tractor costs without the special equipment.
The salesmen add that any investment could take less than two years to recoup because of the estimated fuel savings.
Converting belt driven parts to electic will save a good bit of fuel. The normal auto industry is starting to this as well.The engine is not a big part of the solution,? Bustnes said. ?The really big piece is aerodynamics.?
Suggestions made to achieve 13 mpg include the electrification of items such as fans, water pumps and air-conditioning compressors. Also, the type of material used to build a tractor is expected to be modified.
Auxiliary power units, devices exterior to the engine that use less fuel when a truck sits idling, also will help improve fuel economy.
Didn't exactly work too well with the Italians. Remember the Mafia?Originally posted by: Vic
This really seems to be the only viable solution at this point. Screen out the bad apples, and document the rest and make them pay taxes. Hey, it worked with the Italians.Originally posted by: charrison
I think we would be better off setting up a few ellis island facilites on the southern border. Document them as they come and let them work and pay taxes, instead of being paid under the table.
As long the economy in mexico sucks, they are going to find a way to get here.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I imagine if WalMart sourced more materials in America (and locally) they could dramatically reduce shipping costs. Naturally, they might have to pay decent prices to a multitude of small suppliers but it would still have the practical effect of HUGE cuts in emissions. Not to mention a big reduction in our demand for diesel which would lower the cost for all other consumers (farmers, other industry, and cool automobiles).
Originally posted by: marincounty
Yeah, but they're still buying polluting Diesel trucks, that put out all kinds of toxic particles. If they were really progressive, they would use natural gas or something less polluting than diesel.
I also think it's great that diesel costs more than gasoline now, about time for some payback for these polluters.
Originally posted by: marincounty
Low-sulfur diesel fuel may reduce the particulates somewhat, but not entirely, and we know diesel soot causes cancers and lung disease.
They keep talking about how they are going to clean up diesel, and it always a few years away.
Meanwhile, the much cleaner burning 4-cycle car engine has had major smog devices on it since 1973. I've spent hundreds of dollars on smog inspections and repairs in the past few years, and all of these diesel trucks are driving around spewing crap and have NO pollution controls.
Fact is, the truck lobby and the teamsters have lobbied hard to block any movement to clean up diesels.
Originally posted by: charrison
linkageOriginally posted by: techs
People. Pay attenton.
Walmart has not invented a truck that gets twice the mileage.
They set a goal to get twice the mileage.
I set lots of goals.
Setting a goal is easy.
I will BET you that Walmart doesn't double new truck efficiency by 2015.
What a joke that anyone would even take it seriously.
On its Web site, Wal-Mart boasts of its ?experimental truck,? which represents an attempt at fuel economy and environmental stewardship. One fuel-efficient truck prototype exists, and Wal-Mart said changes will be implemented beginning with its new truck purchases in 2007. The truck features trailer side skirts, super single tires, an aerodynamic tractor, tag axles and auxiliary power units.
Wal-Mart has released few details on what it will cost to replace its fleet, but the company could spend as much as $112,000 per truck, according to truck sales representatives. That?s about $12,000 more than a tractor costs without the special equipment.
The salesmen add that any investment could take less than two years to recoup because of the estimated fuel savings.
So it looks like they are already doing more than talk. It appears their new crop rigs will each use about 6000 gallons less fuel a year. Not trivial number when they plan on buying 700 rigs.
Converting belt driven parts to electic will save a good bit of fuel. The normal auto industry is starting to this as well.The engine is not a big part of the solution,? Bustnes said. ?The really big piece is aerodynamics.?
Suggestions made to achieve 13 mpg include the electrification of items such as fans, water pumps and air-conditioning compressors. Also, the type of material used to build a tractor is expected to be modified.
Auxiliary power units, devices exterior to the engine that use less fuel when a truck sits idling, also will help improve fuel economy.
Originally posted by: Tripleshot
If Walmart wanted to put there money in the right place, they would strong arm these thieving oil companies who are raking in obscene profits at all consumers peril. Someone here justify for me why the cost of diesal is higher than gas. 2/3s of a barrel of oil produce diesal fuel, with very little refining needed. 20% of that barrel makes gasoline with plenty of refining and distiilling needed.
Its about time all of America put these oil companies to task and justify this thievery.:disgust:
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
It's not that Walmart really gives a rat's ass about greenhouse gasses (though it makes for good publicity), it's that they want to save money on fuel costs. Either way, it's a good thing. However, because it benefits Walmart, I guess it's a bad thing, because Walmart is evil.
*head explodes*
Bingo, they are playing the "energy savings campaign" to look like they are trying to save the whales and the ozone layer, when in fact its just to become even more brutally competitive and efficient on costs.
I LOVE it. I just LOOOOOVE it.
Some (not all) lefties are never pleased with ANYTHING. LMFAO. They scream all day long about conservation, reducing emissions, global warming, blah blah blah... And when a corporation (GOOD GOD!!! Not one of THOSE!!!!) figures out a way to do it, (on their own without the government putting its boot on their throats) all they can come up with is "They're not doing it to help the environment, they are doing it to MAKE MORE MONEY. Oh NoeSS!!!!!!1111!11111one The evil geniuses have foiled us again!
Bwaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
But that is the point. Not wasting resources = good for the environment = good for your bottom line. They are one and the same. That is the point of environmentalism. Save the environment in a way that helps your business. Of course they will proclaim that they are being good for the environment. Be my guest, keep getting out that word. Hopefully more businesses will get the word. More companies should do it to - for their bottom line and for the environment.Originally posted by: Acanthus
Im an independant voter, and ive personally seen how walmart is INSANE about cost control. Just beause they can spin this to their advantage doesnt mean they are doing it for the right reasons.
Originally posted by: dullard
But that is the point. Not wasting resources = good for the environment = good for your bottom line. They are one and the same. That is the point of environmentalism. Save the environment in a way that helps your business. Of course they will proclaim that they are being good for the environment. Be my guest, keep getting out that word. Hopefully more businesses will get the word. More companies should do it to - for their bottom line and for the environment.Originally posted by: Acanthus
Im an independant voter, and ive personally seen how walmart is INSANE about cost control. Just beause they can spin this to their advantage doesnt mean they are doing it for the right reasons.
Dude, how do you think a Made in China T-shirt gets to Nebraska . . . boat?!Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I imagine if WalMart sourced more materials in America (and locally) they could dramatically reduce shipping costs. Naturally, they might have to pay decent prices to a multitude of small suppliers but it would still have the practical effect of HUGE cuts in emissions. Not to mention a big reduction in our demand for diesel which would lower the cost for all other consumers (farmers, other industry, and cool automobiles).
Sourcing from US will not necessarily mean fuel savings. Their goods are shipped by sea from China and other countries. Water transport is roughly 10% the cost of road transport. And in many cases they can route ships to ports near their regional distribution points. In some cases this could mean less trucking. Trucking, from a fuel efficiency point of view, is the most inefficient mode of transport but necessary as ships & railroad cannot easily go where trucks can.
You could easilly boat up the Missouri river to Nebraska. Omaha is the transportation capital of the US - just about everything is controlled there. Rail, truck, river, air, etc are all convenient.Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Dude, how do you think a Made in China T-shirt gets to Nebraska . . . boat?!