apparatus & commentary LightRock on 19 Jun 2008 01:06 pm
Reducing Fuel Consumption
LightRock addresses the diesel fuel budget:
In the current economic environment and with diesel fuel prices in the $5.00/gal range (a 67% increase in 12 months), can fire and rescue departments continue to afford to do business as usual?
According to a June 18th article in the Wall Street Journal Online HERE, it appears that the answer is “No”. Here are a few questions worth pondering:
- In fire departments that have embraced the “paramedic engine” concept, might we see a move away from sending full size fire engines with large block diesel engines to a more fuel efficient response platform like an SUV, pickup truck or light duty rescue vehicle? Coincidentally, such vehicles would likely be faster and more maneuverable, especially in more urban areas. Some trial programs using this concept are already being tried in a few departments.
- Are other response protocols going to be looked at with a view towards taming them down somewhat? I know…we “need” the massive first alarm response that many departments send on reported “structure fires” but, at the same time, I think it is fair to say that in many areas the definition of a reported structure fire has become pretty broad. What would just a little dose of better call screening do to reduce some responses, saving fuel as well as limiting liability and enhancing unit availability for other calls?
- At the scene, we idle a lot. When an apparatus isn’t pumping, might there be better and more fuel efficient ways to “run the lights” than with the same big diesel engine that propels the truck and the pump? The analogy that comes to mind is that of the airliner. While sitting at a gate or on a tarmac, the air conditioning, lights and other basics needed on the ground are powered by an APU (auxiliary power unit) and not the jet engines. I can tell you from recent personal experience that this is already a question that is being asked.
This video report from KVBC in Las Vegas last month covers the impact on the Clark County and Las Vegas fire departments:
on 19 Jun 2008 at 2:53 pm 1.Dal90 said …
The answer is one word:
No.
The answer for those who want to know the details:
All things equal, that is if you’re just buying a vehicle or other piece of equipment to save fuel, the math will never pencil out positively.
That is different from utilizing a resource you already own (say an existing pickup), or considering if a 300hp diesel is adequate instead of a 450hp diesel when specing the next truck. Those are different situations, and good things to consider.
But let’s consider the math on making a capital investment to see if it would save us money:
First, let’s remember our heavy apparatus are built with engines, transmissions, brakes, etc designed for trucks that put 100,000+ miles on them in a year in commercial service. Not a fire engine that’s a busy company to see 10,000 miles a year. It means a lot of service costs are done not by mileage, hours, or objective tests, but simply out of time — it would take years or decades otherwise to reach the hours needed to change components. That means our fixed costs are pretty much the same whether an engine runs 1,000 miles, 5,000 miles, or 10,000 miles in a year.
Let’s assume a few things:
1,000 EMS runs a year to be done by an alternate vehicle;
5mpg mileage on your engine;
2 mile round trip on average for a medical call.
That’s 2,000 miles per year, or 400 gallons in diesel fuel used. At $5 diesel, that’s a savings of $2,000/year per 1,000 runs.
What is the capital cost to purchase an alternate vehicle? I think $30,000 to buy a gasoline powered 4×4 pickup truck with a cap, and install radios and lights, as well as duplicate equipment like Defibs currently on the engines would be a very, very tight budget.
What’s the service life of such a vehicle? Even we assume a 10 year life for front-line service by a light duty vehicle like that, you’ve already lost the math on the day you buy the vehicle, since it’s amortized (over service life) cost is $3,000 to save $2,000. Even with a 15 year life, the extra cost in fuel and maintenance for the vehicle will mean the finances don’t pencil out.
As you get busier, you’ll still see no savings. Going to take an urban system running 3,000 EMS runs and get 10 years out of a cheap vehicle? No. Nor in a busy, urban system would you want to split Engine crews up and put them behind the gun when a fire call comes in and couple people are out gallavanting in another vehicle — and hiring more staff will ALWAYS be more expensive then fuel.
It hurts the budget because of the sudden increase in one budget line. But’s the simple fact is fuel is still relatively cheap. It’s cheaper then people, and it’s cheaper then buying more vehicles.