The people who sell the fuels have approximately zero influence over the people who sell the trucks. Truck manufacturers try to optimize overall operating costs because that's the primary metric their customers look at. Adding active aerodynamic surfaces to trucks would cut fuel consumption slightly, but nowhere near in half (as londons_explore suggested); that's simply not plausible. And it would be another thing to break.
> Last week, a group of Republican attorneys general decided to sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its decision to reinstate the waiver allowing California to set its own limitations on exhaust gasses and zero-emission vehicle mandates that would exceed federal standards.
What's your point? That article isn't relevant to my previous comment. Nothing is stopping truck manufacturers from increasing fuel efficiency. They're free to do so, regardless of whether or not California imposes emissions requirements that are stricter than the federal standard.
Big Oil lobbies government hard to not price in externalities (carbon tax).
Therefore diesel is cheaper than it might be under a carbon tax. Truck manufacturers optimise max length & volume, so flat front and back, rather than diesel efficiency.
> I don't think they do optimize volume, because they could certainly have larger trailers.
No they cannot, at least in Europe. The outer dimension of trucks are regulated, such that street planners know what to plan for and truckers know they can pass a street.
People think ya can pop a wind farm anywhere, but ya have to be able to drive the 100m plus single piece blades there, they don't fit on regular trucks, and doesn't always go as planned.
Exactly, the benefits are fairly marginal. Its a bit like those foldout truck tails, they do have a marginal benefit but they cause truckers enough pain that many avoid them.
