6 ms·

I feel like this is such low hanging fruit. As the public, I think it’s fair to push “publicly owned” services to be at the bleeding edge of new technology, esp

I feel like this is such low hanging fruit. As the public, I think it’s fair to push “publicly owned” services to be at the bleeding edge of new technology, especially when it could have a high impact. It seems like a USPS route is an awesome fit for EVs: - It can charge overnight at the facility - it goes pretty slow most of the time, with a lot of stop and go. No need to go super fast, have excellent aerodynamics, or fancy features. - emissions wise, 8.6mpg is really, really bad. - cost wise, paying for gas for 8.6mpg trucks is really, really bad. - No need for an extreme range. Just driving slowly around city/town blocks shouldn’t take that much energy. - Lower maintenance burden for something that gets used every single day should save money. - More space in the truck for packages because there’s no engine. All of these together mean that a USPS EV doesn’t have the big concerns that normal consumers might have: - No charging at home or at a rental place. - No charging where they need to go. (USPS truck would have a static route, always in range of its home charger) - Crazy features high-tech cars might have. (Can be super basic.) So all in, I don’t get why they wouldn’t do this. I just can’t see a world where an EV is more expensive than a gas truck. Even if it’s a bit more up front, they have to save a ton over time with fuel and maintenance savings. And it doesn’t even seem like range would be a problem on the vast majority of routes. I’m trying to think of an extreme route length, and it can’t be more than 100mi, right? That seems crazy high, and is also super low as far as EV range goes these days. So what gives?

bnajdecki 4y ago
You’re 100% right. I would like to see the reasoning behind this decision
- netizen-936824 4y ago
  $$ for friends of politicians
- tedunangst 4y ago
  They found one really long mail route that couldn't be serviced by an EV, so it's just a matter of crafting the requirements that every vehicle must handle every route, and you get the preordained outcome.
  - bscphil 4y ago
    If this is actually true rather than just speculation, I would be interested in reading about the specifics.
    - tedunangst 4y ago
      As the lawsuit says, they considered two plans: 10 percent EV and 100 percent EV. 100 percent EV rejected because there are unsuitable routes. Never considered 90 percent EV, or made any effort to identify what percentage would be feasible. The 100 percent plan was obviously designed to fail; just a fig leaf that they tried due diligence.
Salgat 4y ago
Between regenerative braking and the fact that EVs don't need transmissions (which stop and go traffic is especially hard on), it does seem like a no brainer.
- mirntyfirty 4y ago
  I’d be concerned about the lifetime costs of the vehicle regarding maintenance, repair, and replacement parts. I’d guess that insurance would be much higher too depending on how that’s handled. Would chip shortages cause issues?
  - cptcobalt 4y ago
    What context is informing your comment? So far, data shows that well-made EVs have lower maintenance and repair costs than legacy vehicles in similar categories. There are definitely some fairly unreliable EVs—early leafs with horrible batteries (early technology), and exploding chevy bolts (GM...you tell me), but that isn't true for the latest or high end vehicles. Also, the USPS is self-insured (and therefore insurance costs are irrelevant), and chip shortages would really only impact the steady delivery of vehicles and (to a lesser extent) service parts.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - bushbaba 4y ago
      Insurance costs are based off claim probability. So if say a Tesla is more expensive to insure than a Honda. It likely means self insurance costs of a Tesla would be higher than a Honda.
ScoobleDoodle 4y ago
It seems the problem is Republican appointed Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, who has millions of dollars in investments in competing companies, and is taking more self interested action to tear apart the USPS from the inside.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Congress and Biden recently fixed the prepay pension handcuffs initially intended to hold the USPS down from investment in their infra. DeJoy came out and said they have more funds for EVs now that they don’t have to prepay 75 years of pensions. It’s still good to get rid of him (his beliefs are deeply rooted in private business versus being a steward of a public good), but progress is being made. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-postal-service-plans-raise-prices-first-class-mail-2022-04-06/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-postal-service-plans-rai... http://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/usps-doubles-ev-truck-order-but-environmentalists-want-more-1.1742636 http://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/usps-doubles-ev-truck-order-but-e...
  - syshum 4y ago
    I am normally not a big fan of government as a private business.. However USPS and Amtrek NEED to be run more like a business. The fact they have not been for decades is part of the problem with the services. If we are talking something like the police, or fire or something like that I would agree that is dangerous to run those services like a business. I however do not put USPS on the same leave as police and fire. they ship envelopes and packages from one location to another, that is a business and it should be run like one
    - warning26 4y ago
      In what way is it not run like one? Amtrak has a CEO and a board of directors, and is basically run as a business, albeit a subsidized one. You can take away the subsidies of course -- it would maybe be possible for Amtrak to operate profitably if it removed every route except the northeast corridor. But is that really want we want Amtrak for? To run one rail line?
bushbaba 4y ago
I wouldn’t assume the ev fleet is cheaper than a gas truck fleet. Tesla model Y uses roughly 0.3kwh per mile. Pge charges roughly 30 cent per kWh to residential customers. That’s roughly 2.7$/30 miles. Yet the Tesla model y is a 60k car where-as a Honda CRV is roughly 30k. So we’re talking easily needing to drive 200k miles before break even. And that’s not including any depreciation, ev charger installs, higher insurance, higher car tax, etc. the Crv has minimal ICE maintenance for its first 6ish years. I do agree tha usps should use EVs for a large portion of its fleet. But it might pay to slowly ramp up usage to get a true sense to costs involved, and which technologies to use.
- noahtallen 4y ago
  I mean, if we’re buying 50k-150k vehicles in the next ten years — most of which will probably last many decades — we need to set ourself up for the future. If 75% of the orders are ICEs, that’s more than 100k new ICEs just for the USPS. That’s a really strong step in the wrong direction, imo. Looking at fuel, though, let’s consider a 30mi route. (Supposedly the average rural route is 45, unsure about cities.) Assuming it runs 6 days a week, that’s around 9k miles per year. At 8.6mpg, it’s around 1k gallons of gas per year. At the current average around $4, that’s $4000 per year on gas. The current average electricity price for commercial and for transportation sectors is around $0.12/kWh according to EIA. It’s tricky to figure out what the kWh/mi is because it’s obviously a small truck, it’s going low speeds, and it’s able to use regen braking due to frequent stops. These factors make it hard to come up with a good number, but maybe let’s say 0.4kwh/mi (similar to an EV truck iirc.) At 9k miles, that’s 3600kwh. With the 12 cent energy cost, that’s only $430. So the cost savings is around $3500/yr/vehicle, and gets even better if my miles per year calculation of 9000 is low. (Which is plausible.) and even better if the efficiency is better due to regen braking and low speeds. (Also plausible.) Multiplied by 50k vehicles, it’s a cost savings of $175 million on fuel alone per year! The USPS also stated in its release that many of their vehicles have been around for 30yrs. So I think it’s pretty plausible to say that a high mileage break-even cost is obtainable. And if we’re keeping these vehicles for decades and decades, it’s that much more important to go full EV today so that we aren’t running on inefficient, polluting, legacy tech in 30 years.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

bnajdecki 4y ago

You’re 100% right. I would like to see the reasoning behind this decision

netizen-936824 4y ago
$$ for friends of politicians
tedunangst 4y ago
They found one really long mail route that couldn't be serviced by an EV, so it's just a matter of crafting the requirements that every vehicle must handle every route, and you get the preordained outcome.
- bscphil 4y ago
  If this is actually true rather than just speculation, I would be interested in reading about the specifics.
  - tedunangst 4y ago
    As the lawsuit says, they considered two plans: 10 percent EV and 100 percent EV. 100 percent EV rejected because there are unsuitable routes. Never considered 90 percent EV, or made any effort to identify what percentage would be feasible. The 100 percent plan was obviously designed to fail; just a fig leaf that they tried due diligence.

Salgat 4y ago

Between regenerative braking and the fact that EVs don't need transmissions (which stop and go traffic is especially hard on), it does seem like a no brainer.

mirntyfirty 4y ago
I’d be concerned about the lifetime costs of the vehicle regarding maintenance, repair, and replacement parts. I’d guess that insurance would be much higher too depending on how that’s handled. Would chip shortages cause issues?
- cptcobalt 4y ago
  What context is informing your comment? So far, data shows that well-made EVs have lower maintenance and repair costs than legacy vehicles in similar categories. There are definitely some fairly unreliable EVs—early leafs with horrible batteries (early technology), and exploding chevy bolts (GM...you tell me), but that isn't true for the latest or high end vehicles. Also, the USPS is self-insured (and therefore insurance costs are irrelevant), and chip shortages would really only impact the steady delivery of vehicles and (to a lesser extent) service parts.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - bushbaba 4y ago
    Insurance costs are based off claim probability. So if say a Tesla is more expensive to insure than a Honda. It likely means self insurance costs of a Tesla would be higher than a Honda.

ScoobleDoodle 4y ago

It seems the problem is Republican appointed Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, who has millions of dollars in investments in competing companies, and is taking more self interested action to tear apart the USPS from the inside.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
Congress and Biden recently fixed the prepay pension handcuffs initially intended to hold the USPS down from investment in their infra. DeJoy came out and said they have more funds for EVs now that they don’t have to prepay 75 years of pensions. It’s still good to get rid of him (his beliefs are deeply rooted in private business versus being a steward of a public good), but progress is being made. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-postal-service-plans-raise-prices-first-class-mail-2022-04-06/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-postal-service-plans-rai... http://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/usps-doubles-ev-truck-order-but-environmentalists-want-more-1.1742636 http://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/usps-doubles-ev-truck-order-but-e...
- syshum 4y ago
  I am normally not a big fan of government as a private business.. However USPS and Amtrek NEED to be run more like a business. The fact they have not been for decades is part of the problem with the services. If we are talking something like the police, or fire or something like that I would agree that is dangerous to run those services like a business. I however do not put USPS on the same leave as police and fire. they ship envelopes and packages from one location to another, that is a business and it should be run like one
  - warning26 4y ago
    In what way is it not run like one? Amtrak has a CEO and a board of directors, and is basically run as a business, albeit a subsidized one. You can take away the subsidies of course -- it would maybe be possible for Amtrak to operate profitably if it removed every route except the northeast corridor. But is that really want we want Amtrak for? To run one rail line?

bushbaba 4y ago

I wouldn’t assume the ev fleet is cheaper than a gas truck fleet. Tesla model Y uses roughly 0.3kwh per mile. Pge charges roughly 30 cent per kWh to residential customers. That’s roughly 2.7$/30 miles. Yet the Tesla model y is a 60k car where-as a Honda CRV is roughly 30k. So we’re talking easily needing to drive 200k miles before break even. And that’s not including any depreciation, ev charger installs, higher insurance, higher car tax, etc. the Crv has minimal ICE maintenance for its first 6ish years. I do agree tha usps should use EVs for a large portion of its fleet. But it might pay to slowly ramp up usage to get a true sense to costs involved, and which technologies to use.

noahtallen 4y ago
I mean, if we’re buying 50k-150k vehicles in the next ten years — most of which will probably last many decades — we need to set ourself up for the future. If 75% of the orders are ICEs, that’s more than 100k new ICEs just for the USPS. That’s a really strong step in the wrong direction, imo. Looking at fuel, though, let’s consider a 30mi route. (Supposedly the average rural route is 45, unsure about cities.) Assuming it runs 6 days a week, that’s around 9k miles per year. At 8.6mpg, it’s around 1k gallons of gas per year. At the current average around $4, that’s $4000 per year on gas. The current average electricity price for commercial and for transportation sectors is around $0.12/kWh according to EIA. It’s tricky to figure out what the kWh/mi is because it’s obviously a small truck, it’s going low speeds, and it’s able to use regen braking due to frequent stops. These factors make it hard to come up with a good number, but maybe let’s say 0.4kwh/mi (similar to an EV truck iirc.) At 9k miles, that’s 3600kwh. With the 12 cent energy cost, that’s only $430. So the cost savings is around $3500/yr/vehicle, and gets even better if my miles per year calculation of 9000 is low. (Which is plausible.) and even better if the efficiency is better due to regen braking and low speeds. (Also plausible.) Multiplied by 50k vehicles, it’s a cost savings of $175 million on fuel alone per year! The USPS also stated in its release that many of their vehicles have been around for 30yrs. So I think it’s pretty plausible to say that a high mileage break-even cost is obtainable. And if we’re keeping these vehicles for decades and decades, it’s that much more important to go full EV today so that we aren’t running on inefficient, polluting, legacy tech in 30 years.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]