4 ms·

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 residentia

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 5y 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.
- bushbaba 5y ago
  The 8.6mpg was with Aircon on. Also a ford transit van gets 24 mpg city. So let’s just call it 14mpg if the thing was designed more economically and didn’t use any aircon. That brings fuel cost to 2500/year. Your EV costs also need to include the cost of battery replacement, cost of charger install, and a manufacturer actually capable of delivering this volume of EVs. After all said and done. I doubt EVs will be drastically cheaper on a TCO basis. Now if we take into consideration cost of pollution removal, then yes EVs are cheaper. It’d also be smart if the government to make the switch to encourage domestic EV manufacturing capabilities
  - noahtallen 5y ago
    Conversely, the ICE cost also needs to take into account things like oil changes and powertrain maintenance. I’ll concede that it’s hard to calculate and we can’t be certain. But it does seem like things are factored in favor of EVs in the long run. For example, if battery recycling, chargers, and those other costs associated with EVs continue decreasing, TCO looks even better in 10-15 years. Plus, committing to EVs helps push the industry forward and reduce costs, like you say.
thatcat 5y ago
First, that's a high power cost - industrial zoned areas often pay less and in many states even consumers pay about 1/3 of that. Then consider that the cost is variable - gas will likely continue to increase while power could get cheaper and reduce co2 per mile emissions as local power production tech is upgraded. Second, investing in EV improves EV adoption rate and support networks. Investing in poor mileage ICE at scale will likely inflate fuel prices for everyone else. When estimating lifetime costs you are simply assuming that prices will stay at current levels when this investment itself could create unfavorable changes to the estimate.

noahtallen 5y 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.

bushbaba 5y ago
The 8.6mpg was with Aircon on. Also a ford transit van gets 24 mpg city. So let’s just call it 14mpg if the thing was designed more economically and didn’t use any aircon. That brings fuel cost to 2500/year. Your EV costs also need to include the cost of battery replacement, cost of charger install, and a manufacturer actually capable of delivering this volume of EVs. After all said and done. I doubt EVs will be drastically cheaper on a TCO basis. Now if we take into consideration cost of pollution removal, then yes EVs are cheaper. It’d also be smart if the government to make the switch to encourage domestic EV manufacturing capabilities
- noahtallen 5y ago
  Conversely, the ICE cost also needs to take into account things like oil changes and powertrain maintenance. I’ll concede that it’s hard to calculate and we can’t be certain. But it does seem like things are factored in favor of EVs in the long run. For example, if battery recycling, chargers, and those other costs associated with EVs continue decreasing, TCO looks even better in 10-15 years. Plus, committing to EVs helps push the industry forward and reduce costs, like you say.

thatcat 5y ago

First, that's a high power cost - industrial zoned areas often pay less and in many states even consumers pay about 1/3 of that. Then consider that the cost is variable - gas will likely continue to increase while power could get cheaper and reduce co2 per mile emissions as local power production tech is upgraded. Second, investing in EV improves EV adoption rate and support networks. Investing in poor mileage ICE at scale will likely inflate fuel prices for everyone else. When estimating lifetime costs you are simply assuming that prices will stay at current levels when this investment itself could create unfavorable changes to the estimate.