USPS is getting new trucks but only 10% are electric

[Kawaii Koneko]

Meh. Not like they would pass any fuel savings onto us anyway.

[dalekphalm]

27 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

What happens to the battery packs in an electric version of this thing?  They're just going to swap them out every 10 years?  Were they doing engine replacements that frequently with the current LLV?  Do the batteries actually die in 5 years with this sort of constant hard use that Tesla vehicles never see?

Evidence that they will last only 10 years, let alone 5? typically battery packs like this will often have advanced battery management to level out the wear pattern equally, and especially if they use an actively thermally managed config, that would again increase battery lifespan - and on top of that, there can be cell overprovisioning, which can also increase battery lifespan.

 

If they need replacing every 5 years, there's probably a defect of some kind, or they underspecced really badly with a flawed design.

 

There are Tesla taxi cabs that have seen an insane number of miles in stop and go traffic. The weight might be different, but the application is still somewhat similar.

 

And even if the battery packs do need to be swapped out frequently, those "dead" battery packs are actually not even remotely close to dead, they just can't keep up with the high energy application of powering a drivetrain. These can be used as battery bank backup storage in case of power outages. You can use grids of them to get a significant amount of power.

 

This is also pretty similar to how "dead" EV battery packs are already being used. They're often tied into a local energy grid, to store unneeded renewable energy (eg: when solar or wind are in excess), or to load balance.

27 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

It's been said probably a ton of times but charging infrastructure is actually a significant problem.  Even doing something "basic" like putting a pedestal in a parking garage requires engineering effort because oftentimes *nothing* was built assuming you now need several thousand watts of power delivery in one area.  In a vehicle yard with a bunch of these vehicles you're probably talking about needing to do substantial upgrades all the way back to the transformers.  And oh by the way it's all been fully built on, so it's not as cheap as it was when it was under construction and everything was wide open.

For sure those are challenges. But they're not difficult to solve, ultimately. And you can target the vehicle depots that already have sufficient local infrastructure, while upgrading the infrastructure of those that need it.

[kpluck]

On 2/26/2021 at 9:35 AM, GDRRiley said:

My thoughts

I wanted 90-95%

Then by all means, send them 4 billion dollars so they can get it done. However, what they should be doing is eliminating the postal service entirely. Take the 8-10 billion dollars they lose each year and use it for internet access it rural areas.  The USPS time is over. It is time to put it out of our misery.

 

-kp

[birdflyer]

On 2/26/2021 at 9:35 AM, GDRRiley said:

USPS has picked their new trucks. Built by Oshkosh a major vehicle manufacturer for the defense department.

Awesome for areas that have official USPS trucks. In my area, the USPS people use there own vehicles.

[GDRRiley]

7 minutes ago, kpluck said:

Then by all means, send them 4 billion dollars so they can get it done. However, what they should be doing is eliminating the postal service entirely. Take the 8-10 billion dollars they lose each year and use it for internet access it rural areas.  The USPS time is over. It is time to put it out of our misery.

 

The hell are you on?

they lose money because they have to pay out benefits out for the next decade unlike any other org.

We are required to have a system and we fully need it. without them rural areas will never get mail or packages. UPS and Fedex normally hand off packages to USPS for the rural sections because they don't want to send a truck out

We've spend enough money for rural people to have good internet now its just time to force ISPs to do that

 

Just now, birdflyer said:

Awesome for areas that have official USPS trucks. In my area, the USPS people use there own vehicles.

yeah its common for a few areas, maybe this will mean some of the older trucks get pushed to those areas.

 

[Bombastinator]

11 minutes ago, kpluck said:

Then by all means, send them 4 billion dollars so they can get it done. However, what they should be doing is eliminating the postal service entirely. Take the 8-10 billion dollars they lose each year and use it for internet access it rural areas.  The USPS time is over. It is time to put it out of our misery.

 

-kp

Ah the “everything works better as a private for-profit corporation because someone old me so” thing.  Turns out it doesn’t actually work like that.  For profit post offices have been tried.  They work miserably.  The biggest pressure for getting rid of the post office is coming from fed-ex and UPS because even with the advantages granted to them they are still having trouble competing.  USPS is beating them with one arm tied behind its back.

Edited March 1, 2021 by Bombastinator

[birdflyer]

13 minutes ago, kpluck said:

Then by all means, send them 4 billion dollars so they can get it done. However, what they should be doing is eliminating the postal service entirely. Take the 8-10 billion dollars they lose each year and use it for internet access it rural areas.  The USPS time is over. It is time to put it out of our misery.

 

-kp

Dislike.

[pythonmegapixel]

14 minutes ago, kpluck said:

Then by all means, send them 4 billion dollars so they can get it done. However, what they should be doing is eliminating the postal service entirely. Take the 8-10 billion dollars they lose each year and use it for internet access it rural areas.  The USPS time is over. It is time to put it out of our misery.

Who's going to deliver all of the things that people order online then?

[thechinchinsong]

I think people are forgetting the main point of the original post. It was that it's a shame that USPS isn't starting out with a higher percentage of electric vehicles, not that USPS isn't going all-electric. There are plenty of edge cases and difficult situations where an ICE vehicle could be better (at least for now), but for large portions of urban and suburban areas in the US, an electric vehicle makes plenty of sense. Nobody expected USPS to go all electric from the get-go, it's just disappointing they didn't start out with a higher percentage of electric vehicles, considering a lot of places can use them.

[Rybo]

On 2/27/2021 at 9:53 PM, poochyena said:

I'm asking for source to this specific claim in regards to EVs: "Accelerating a vehicle from a stop is significantly less efficient than staying at a set speed (say, 50 mph for EPA enjoyment). Guess what a USPS vehicle does? Start. Stop. Start. Stop. Start. Stop."

EV owner here.  The answer to your question depends on your threshold for "significant."  I will say that mileage ratings on existing cars account for regenerative braking.  So a Toyota Camry gets Up to 28 city / 39 highway, whereas a Chevy Bolt gets 127 city / 108 highway (both values pulled from Google and are required reporting values for all cars sold in the US) -- notice how the EV gets more city mileage than highway rather than less?  That's what regenerative braking does for you.  

I would call that notable, but not significant, because those numbers are utterly optimistic, particularly for a delivery vehicle.  The main reason is that if you touch your brakes, you're instantly going to run below those estimates.  If you're in a hilly area, for example, you'll get no regenerative braking uphill because gravity will do the work, and less than you should get downhill because you'll have to hit the brake to actually stop (unless, of course, these new engines are capable of WAYYYY more capture than current vehicle options are).  Flat ground is a better outlook, but even the most defensive driver will have to tap the brakes every once in a while.  Still, it's a big win over ICE's.  

Range?  That's a bit of an issue.  Someone way earlier in the thread talked about how batteries are essentially dead weight.  This is true.  It's a version of the rocket equation: for each unit of payload you want to be able to move, you have to add a unit of battery -- which is also a unit of payload that you have to move, which requires more battery, which is another unit of payload....(etc, ad infinitum).  Except it's worse, since the battery stays with you even when it's drained.  The short version is that there's a line past which EV's just don't make sense -- where the battery would have to be so massive that the efficiency gains from using batteries in the first place was lost to the energy cost of...towing around 5 tons of batteries.  I don't think mail trucks are on the wrong side of that line, but they're definitely closer to it than your typical commuter car.  We'd need the specs of the EV truck and an engineer to crunch the numbers to see if a battery powered hauling scenario is realistic.  But one thing's for sure, these things aren't going to be anywhere near as fuel efficient as the commuter cars we have out today.  

So accounting for range, I still think EV's will be more fuel efficient than ICE's, but it's probably not going to be as pretty as commuter car numbers are.  

One thing EV owners like to tout that I haven't seen mentioned here are reduced maintenance costs.  ICE's have a pretty dense maintenance schedule: oil changes, brakes, rotors, belts, fluids, all manner of junk.  EV's are...change cabin filter, top off windshield wiper fluid, and rotate your tires.  But then again, you get to buy a new battery every 7-10 years, so that's like $5-$10 grand of maintenance costs covered -- overall, it's probably a wash.  

So the TCO would lean in favor of electric on the basis of its improved fuel efficiency -- if not for the initial cost of the vehicle.  I don't have access to their precise numbers, but calculating the TCO for both EV delivery trucks and ICE trucks probably leans in ICE's favor at this point, though one confounding factor is that the chassis isn't going to be mass produced either way, so the difference in initial purchase cost might be much smaller than it is with normal EV's. 

 

As far as the electric grid goes, there's not much of an argument here.  It's true that you can't trickle charge these vehicles.  Pretty much the entire fleet will need level 2 chargers on them, which will be running at full power for most of the time they're connected (Level 2 chargers are 240v @ 30amps).  That is a pretty big load when most power grids reduce their output -- either by necessity (green energy sleeps at night!) or through natural causes (don't want to burn fuel that won't get used!).  

But that's still not a huge issue.  We're talking about a fleet of, what, 160 thousand vehicles spread across the country?  That's barely a drop in the bucket.  Here's an explainer for what would happen to the grid if all 200+ MILLION cars were switched to electric.  Short version: we'd need some improvements, but even at our current capacity + growth we could strategically charge our cars and make it work.  

[spartaman64]

44 minutes ago, kpluck said:

Then by all means, send them 4 billion dollars so they can get it done. However, what they should be doing is eliminating the postal service entirely. Take the 8-10 billion dollars they lose each year and use it for internet access it rural areas.  The USPS time is over. It is time to put it out of our misery.

 

-kp

if that happens then people that live in certain parts would never receive another package. also not to mention troops overseas would have to pay significantly more for letters/packages

[poochyena]

35 minutes ago, kpluck said:

Then by all means, send them 4 billion dollars so they can get it done. However, what they should be doing is eliminating the postal service entirely. Take the 8-10 billion dollars they lose each year and use it for internet access it rural areas.  The USPS time is over. It is time to put it out of our misery.

 

-kp

Enjoy paying nearly 3 times as much for shipping small items then.

 

[Donut417]

17 hours ago, kpluck said:

The USPS time is over. It is time to put it out of our misery. 
 

Not sure they can. Postal Clause in the constitution and all. 

[dalekphalm]

20 hours ago, kpluck said:

Then by all means, send them 4 billion dollars so they can get it done. However, what they should be doing is eliminating the postal service entirely. Take the 8-10 billion dollars they lose each year and use it for internet access it rural areas.  The USPS time is over. It is time to put it out of our misery.

 

-kp

I don't think they can get rid of the USPS. The Government providing postal services is literally written into the Constitution.

 

Aside from that, the USPS serves a vital function, offering service in areas that private companies like UPS and Fedex don't like dealing with. They're a publicly funded body - they don't need to make money (though it's ideal if they don't lose a lot of money).

[FakeATF]

On 2/26/2021 at 3:32 PM, poochyena said:

 

can you explain why that is? What, exactly, is the difference between an electric car driving 300 miles on a straight road vs a curvy road?

 

Newtons 1st law. Takes more energy to change the direction of a moving object than let it keep moving. Acceleration and deceleration also take more energy than moving at a constant speed. Also keep in mind that these vehicles are not Teslas.

[poochyena]

2 hours ago, EjectedCasings said:

Newtons 1st law. Takes more energy to change the direction of a moving object than let it keep moving. Acceleration and deceleration also take more energy than moving at a constant speed.

ok and? 300 miles is 300 miles

 

2 hours ago, EjectedCasings said:

Also keep in mind that these vehicles are not Teslas.

no way!!!!!

[pythonmegapixel]

18 minutes ago, poochyena said:

ok and? 300 miles is 300 miles

It's not. That's the entire point.

 

"300 miles" is an estimate based upon normal driving. If you keep starting and stopping that range is reduced.

[poochyena]

7 minutes ago, pythonmegapixel said:

"300 miles" is an estimate based upon normal driving.

and which sounds closer to normal driving? Driving in a straight line non-stop, or driving on various roads with various speeds, curves, hills, etc.?
 

 

9 minutes ago, pythonmegapixel said:

If you keep starting and stopping that range is reduced.

by how much?

[pythonmegapixel]

2 minutes ago, poochyena said:

and which sounds closer to normal driving? Driving in a straight line non-stop, or driving on various roads with various speeds, curves, hills, etc.?

That is an unhelpful question to ask, because that's not how post office vehicles work. If you're driving normally, you don't expect to stop on every street, do you?

 

2 minutes ago, poochyena said:

by how much?

I don't know precisely, and it depends on too many factors to provide a conclusive answer.

 

Enough that the range will be noticeably less than it would be if the same drivetrain and batteries were used for a normal car driving pattern, but probably not enough that it wouldn't be able to serve a full round of deliveries for a day.

[dalekphalm]

28 minutes ago, pythonmegapixel said:

It's not. That's the entire point.

 

"300 miles" is an estimate based upon normal driving. If you keep starting and stopping that range is reduced.

I think what he's trying to say is that 300 miles driven in a straight line, is not going to consume significantly more energy than 300 miles but you're turning the wheel now and then.

Elevation changes, speed changes, stopping and starting, these are factors that will matter. Whether the road is straight or there are lots of turns really isn't going to matter.

[FakeATF]

5 hours ago, poochyena said:

ok and? 300 miles is 300 miles

 

no way!!!!!

The point is that these vehicles do not have the same performance as a Tesla. Shocking, I know. (Shocking, hehe, get it?) They will most likely not do anywhere near 300 miles. Even if, for the sake of argument, they could do that distance, they will not do so in real world use.

 

Saying that 300 miles is doable regardless of condition, route, or speed is not an argument. Neither is sarcasm. Defend your point, or conclude that others are right. 

[Bombastinator]

6 minutes ago, EjectedCasings said:

The point is that these vehicles do not have the same performance as a Tesla. Shocking, I know. (Shocking, hehe, get it?) They will most likely not do anywhere near 300 miles. Even if, for the sake of argument, they could do that distance, they will not do so in real world use.

 

Saying that 300 miles is doable regardless of condition, route, or speed is not an argument. Neither is sarcasm. Defend your point, or conclude that others are right. 

we have very little in this is true.  We don’t know what technology was used or have any information really.  We don’t even know what “10%” really means.

[Rybo]

56 minutes ago, EjectedCasings said:

They will most likely not do anywhere near 300 miles.

Sure they will.  They can put as much battery into these things as they need to get the range they want.  The problem is that each unit of battery reduces the overall efficiency of the package, so that 300 miles of range won't be 100+mpge -- it'll probably be closer to 50-70mpge.  

 

@poochyena
As an EV owner, I can tell you with certainty that 300 miles is NOT 300 miles as it pertains to EV range.  When you're operating a vehicle with 90% energy efficiency, EVERYTHING you do induces losses.  Yes, even turning consumes energy.  Speeding up faster than necessary consumes extra energy.  Stopping too hard consumes energy.  Having a cabin that is constantly dumping cold/heat and having restore the operator's desired temps will consume energy.  Heck, having underinflated tires reduces energy efficiency.  And guess what?  Having a load that goes from 80% of cargo capacity to 10% capacity in the course of a day will take your tires from underinflated to overinflated, so you're not really going to be able to have an optimal tire pressure.  Hell, driving against the wind literally doubled my energy consumption for the trip, and travelling WITH the wind reduced the consumption to zero (not literally -- I started with 120 miles of range and ended the 20 mile trip with 120 miles of range).  

 

That's one saving grace of ICE's (such as it is): they're so inefficient that you don't have to sweat the little things -- they're so inconsequential that they don't affect your vehicle's range.  Only hard accelerations really make a difference.  So if you need consistency above all else, ICE wins handily.  

[Tieox]

I say give them 2 stroke diesels.

[Bombastinator]

6 minutes ago, Tieox said:

I say give them 2 stroke diesels.

Because people screaming and running around on fire from a thermal runaway makes for profitable video.