walmart to double truck fleet MPG

[judasmachine]

at least someone is doing something. well if they follow through.

 

[kyparrish]

cool!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Vic

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.

And that is bad... how? In this case, efficiency is good for the environment and our resources. Score one for capitalism.

WalMart is a terrible corporate citizen but regardless of their motivation, it's hard to kick 'em over this one.

 

[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)

 

[Tripleshot]

That freakin international is about as earo dynamic as a boulder. i drove one just like it for 3 years. They strip any more weight off that rig and I damn sure wouldn't drive it. I want plenty of steel protection around me when running a 40 ton rig down the highway with the loons that share the road and care less about anyting but there freakin cell phone call to the ho at home. Those trucks are lucky to get 5MPG. 8MPG is tops.

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:

 

[charrison]

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)

While I agree 13.5mpg is a pipedream, I beleive alot is possible. I doubt anyone in the transport industry would consider it a failure if they only got a rig up to 10.5 mpg.

 

[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.

 

[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).

 

[EatSpam]

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).

Not to mention all the jobs created...and these new workers would have money to spend at Wal-mart.

But then, Wal-mart would lose its reputation as a greedy, souless corporation who uses Chinese slave labor. Can't have that!

 

[charrison]

Originally 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.

linkage

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.

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.

Converting belt driven parts to electic will save a good bit of fuel. The normal auto industry is starting to this as well.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Vic

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.

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.

Didn't exactly work too well with the Italians. Remember the Mafia?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[charrison]

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.

In 2006 low sulfer diesel will hit the markets in the US, which largely kills your argument about diesel being dirty.PM emissions will drop significantly with the new fuel and there are also other technologies that exist that will further reduce those emissions.

 

[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.

 

[charrison]

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.

Even so, diesels are much cleaner than they were 10 years ago and they will get even cleaner with low sulfer diesel and next round of clean diesel technology that must be implemented here in the near future. After these two events they will be producing only a small fraction of what they did in the past.

60 times cleaner in the near future

 

[joshw10]

Anyone familiar with what truckers are paid? I have seen signs on the back of semi's before where the company is offering starting pay of like 50 cents per mile. But I have also heard truckers are responsible for buying their own fuel, which at 6mpg would leave them almost penniless. Can anyone clarify this?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally 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.

linkage

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.

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.

Converting belt driven parts to electic will save a good bit of fuel. The normal auto industry is starting to this as well.

BROKEN LINK

 

[imported_Shivetya]

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:

Actually if you compare oil companies to other companies their returns are not that great. The post large numbers because their product sells in real volumes, but they aren't the best for your investment.

In other words, they are not making obscene profits, they are actually pretty lackluster. Politicians just rely on our ignorance of what companies really do make and like to toss out the large numbers as something unusual.

Still over a third of your gasoline and diesel fuel costs is from direct taxation. That does not include the 20 to 30% more of embedded tax that occurs with all products.

 

[compuwiz1]

I hate Walmart. I purposely go elsewhere and pay more, just because I dislike their business model so much. They are the underminer of all small business, not to mention that they don't pay or treat their employees all that well. Sure they are a huge employer, but how come Costco can pay their veteran cashiers $20 per hour, but wally can only seem to squeak half of that, on the high end?

Their freaking trucks can all run off the road, as far as I care. :|

 

[Acanthus]

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

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.

 

[dullard]

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.

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.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: dullard

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.

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.

On that note, have you seen the article on walmarts experimental store they also have running? They heave a store with something like 40 new innovative ways to reduce energy costs, i saw details on it in some of my training before i quit at sams club for being treated like the dirt the managers walk on.

The weirest innovation i saw was this duct system that was like an inflated cloth tube that was perforated, used for heating and cooling, and it only sits about 8 feet off of the floor. Appearently its supposed to use HALF the energy for both heating and air conditioning.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

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.

Dude, how do you think a Made in China T-shirt gets to Nebraska . . . boat?!

It's quite a task from an organizational standpoint but Buy Local just means getting milk for NC from NC dairy farmers instead of Wisconsin or California (where it's likely cheaper). The same is true for produce with the notable exception that WA doesn't grow oranges and FL doesn't grow many apples.

A "thinking" corporation would source goods locally if the overall calculus makes sense (assuming they care about such things as emissions). Textiles are not sourced in China b/c water transport is cheaper. They are sourced there b/c the textiles themselves are dramatically less expensive.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Dude, how do you think a Made in China T-shirt gets to Nebraska . . . boat?!

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.