Why would we *NOT* replace government fleets with electrics?

[TomC]

I did not know that. I always thought the urbanites were the most efficient.

They are.

Far more efficient to live in a dense urban place, with apartments and public transportation and walkable lives.

Tom

Gotta love those links!

We used to have a poster regularly supplying links proving that Jesus Rose from the dead.

I don't bother with links from some posters claiming to demonstrate really implausible things.
Tom

 

[Toni]

I did not know that. I always thought the urbanites were the most efficient.

They are.

Far more efficient to live in a dense urban place, with apartments and public transportation and walkable lives.

Tom

Gotta love those links!

We used to have a poster regularly supplying links proving that Jesus Rose from the dead.

I don't bother with links from some posters claiming to demonstrate really implausible things.
Tom

So to hell with science, you’ll just go with your gut. Interesting approach.

 

[TomC]

I did not know that. I always thought the urbanites were the most efficient.

They are.

Far more efficient to live in a dense urban place, with apartments and public transportation and walkable lives.

Tom

Gotta love those links!

We used to have a poster regularly supplying links proving that Jesus Rose from the dead.

I don't bother with links from some posters claiming to demonstrate really implausible things.
Tom

So to hell with science, you’ll just go with your gut. Interesting approach.

No, not to hell with science Toni.
It's you I don't find credible enough to bother with.
Tom

 

[Toni]

I did not know that. I always thought the urbanites were the most efficient.

They are.

Far more efficient to live in a dense urban place, with apartments and public transportation and walkable lives.

Tom

Gotta love those links!

We used to have a poster regularly supplying links proving that Jesus Rose from the dead.

I don't bother with links from some posters claiming to demonstrate really implausible things.
Tom

So to hell with science, you’ll just go with your gut. Interesting approach.

No, not to hell with science Toni.
It's you I don't find credible enough to bother with.
Tom

So you have to post nasty replies to me and don’t even bother to see what article I’ve linked, its contents or the publication cited?

Something is implausible if you didn’t already know about it or don’t believe it? What exactly is your criteria? Just dismiss anything I post?

If that’s your jam, fine. But it isn’t a good look for you.

 

[laughing dog]

No, not to hell with science Toni.
It's you I don't find credible enough to bother with.
Tom

What an ironically brilliant analysis.

 

[bilby]

There’s discussion going on about replace the USA postal delivery fleet. I heard on the radio that they are planning to make only 20% of those replacements be electric. And that is after a battle to increase from 5%

The letter carrier fleet is ideal for electric vehicles;
parked in the same place every night
well known daily mileage
many starts and stops


This is something governments can and should be doing to lead the way to reduced emissions.

Thoughts? Links for policy or statistics?

Ordinarily I totally agree. However, our power grid's are failing. We don't have enough base load power. Even if we brought back nuclear power, it would take 10 years to bring the plants back. We're screwed...

You can build a nuclear power plant in less than two years.

Well, South Korea can. You can’t, your country is, as you correctly point out, screwed.

 

[TomC]

Something is implausible if you didn’t already know about it or don’t believe it? What exactly is your criteria?

No.
It's things I do know something about. I know enough to find links to claims that aren't plausible unlikely to be worth the bother, the time and data and such.

Give me a reason to believe that a guy in New York who hasn't ridden in a private vehicle in a month has a carbon footprint comparable to a guy who must drive 20 miles to get anywhere.

Maybe things have changed in the last 30 or so years. But I doubt that they've changed that much.
Tom

 

[bilby]

Why is it that plug-in hybrids are always ignored, as if that technology does not exist, in the gas vs. EV debates?

I suspect that in the eyes of the more extreme "greenies", the hybrids are not pure enough. They still use fossil fuels.

Why not expand use of natural gas powered vehicles for govt use? Pretty clean by comparison to gasoline, widely available fuel source and keeps the electrical grid from getting overloaded.

The other thing I worry about an EV mandate is that some areas of the country do not have electricity that comes from clean, green sources. So, you'd have EVs ultimately powered by, say, coal. Not so green.

The older part of our bus fleet is natural gas powered. They are being phased out in favour of diesel, because the gas vehicles require expensive infrastructure at the depots, refuelling requires special training for safety (and remains dangerous; You can still see the shrapnel marks around the refuelling bay at our depot from the last explosion), and the most modern diesels produce lower levels of particulate and NO_x, which are very important considerations for city centre use.

Electric vehicles are in the testing phase, and will likely be adopted in the future for our fleet; Right now we have six electric buses operating on the City Loop service as a trial, and the Metro vehicles in the pre-service testing phase (Metro is a super-long bus system operating double-articulated vehicles on dedicated bus-only routes).

CNG is certainly not a new option; Our operational experience, with a fleet of ~500 CNG powered buses each approaching their end-of-life with ~10,000,000km per vehicle on the clock, suggests that diesel is superior enough that CNG won’t replace it before electric power does.

It turns out that (for heavy vehicles in an urban and suburban environment), it is cleaner to add emissions control to diesel engines than it is to replace them with CNG engines.

 

[Toni]

Something is implausible if you didn’t already know about it or don’t believe it? What exactly is your criteria?

No.
It's things I do know something about. I know enough to find links to claims that aren't plausible unlikely to be worth the bother, the time and data and such.

Give me a reason to believe that a guy in New York who hasn't ridden in a private vehicle in a month has a carbon footprint comparable to a guy who must drive 20 miles to get anywhere.

Maybe things have changed in the last 30 or so years. But I doubt that they've changed that much.
Tom

This is a Wiki about the cite whose article I linked:

IOP Publishing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

IOP Publishing (previously Institute of Physics Publishing) is the publishing company of the Institute of Physics. It provides publications through which scientific research is distributed worldwide, including journals, community websites, magazines, conference proceedings and books. The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. Any financial surplus earned by IOP Publishing goes to support physics through the activities of the Institute[citation needed].

The main IOP Publishing headquarters is located in Bristol, England, and the North American headquarters is in Philadelphia, United States. It also has regional offices in, Mexico City, Beijing, Tokyo, Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Sydney. It employs over 400 staff.

It should be pretty obvious from my posting history that I am sometimes skeptical of sources posters use, in which case, I check out the source and respond according to the trustworthiness of the source, not my personal butthurt that the poster disagreed with me in other threads.

But you do you. Post what you want, based upon your own personal intuition/current grudges held and science be damned.

 

[skepticalbip]

Something is implausible if you didn’t already know about it or don’t believe it? What exactly is your criteria?

No.
It's things I do know something about. I know enough to find links to claims that aren't plausible unlikely to be worth the bother, the time and data and such.

Give me a reason to believe that a guy in New York who hasn't ridden in a private vehicle in a month has a carbon footprint comparable to a guy who must drive 20 miles to get anywhere.

Maybe things have changed in the last 30 or so years. But I doubt that they've changed that much.
Tom

Ah, you are only looking at the carbon footprint that a person personally has and not including the carbon from all the infrastructure that is required for them to personally have so little. Include the per capita city power use, busses, cabs, A.C and heat for all the buildings, etc. and that footprint gets considerably larger.

 

[Hermit]

Something is implausible if you didn’t already know about it or don’t believe it? What exactly is your criteria?

No.
It's things I do know something about. I know enough to find links to claims that aren't plausible unlikely to be worth the bother, the time and data and such.

Give me a reason to believe that a guy in New York who hasn't ridden in a private vehicle in a month has a carbon footprint comparable to a guy who must drive 20 miles to get anywhere.

Maybe things have changed in the last 30 or so years. But I doubt that they've changed that much.
Tom

Ah, you are only looking at the carbon footprint that a person personally has and not including the carbon from all the infrastructure that is required for them to personally have so little. Include the per capita city power use, busses, cabs, A.C and heat for all the buildings, etc. and that footprint gets considerably larger.

Also, citing a hypothetical guy in New York who hasn't ridden in a private vehicle in a month has a carbon footprint and an equally hypothetical guy who must drive 20 miles to get anywhere is the pinnacle of making shit up. No attempt has been made at substantiating the implicit claim that these are typical scenarios. I may as well cite real life examples of daily 50 kilometre round trips commuting between home and work. I did that between Newtown and Tennora for two years. My brother in law did that between St. Ives and Pyrmont for more than ten years. We were by no means the only ones. Twice daily peak hour traffic jams have been a thing in cities for decades.

Then I could compare these two real-life anecdotes with the guy who owns a cattle station 142 kilometres from Alice Springs. He lives there with his wife, three sons, two grandchildren, four to ten station hands, some with their wives and children. Once a fortnight he sends someone out to the Alice with a ute to pick up victuals, grog and whatever else is needed. These rural people lead a life akin to living on a boat and occasionally making landfall to replenish supplies from a ship chandler.

There you go - I have just "proven" that rural guys have a smaller footprint than urban guys. It's the sort of thing cherry picking excels at. Unfortunately, it may not survive honest statistical analysis. This is why TomC steadfastly refuses to go anywhere near one. Must not let facts get in the way of fabricated opinion.

 

[TomC]

100% replacement would indeed create unworkable gaps.
But - given the nature of replacing the fleet - that it would never be all at once - I think we would avoid any serious issues by starting with replacing the oldest vehicles with all electric and expecting some protion of the fleet - like 10-20% to probably last another 10 years. During that time, good analysis of need could be done.

This^^^^
Especially the phase in over time part.

Nobody is advocating dumping the entire current fleet and replacing them tomorrow. But shooting high starting now. Say, 80% of new vehicle purchases, over the next 3 years, will have electric capabilities. All electric for the purposes that EVs can do. Hybrids for the purposes EVs aren't able at this time. Shift the remaining gas trucks around to uses where they are needed for some reason.

Take advantage of improvement to the technology. Rearrange routes to make them fit the vehicles, instead of buying inefficient vehicles to fit existing routes, expectations, and such.

Dare I suggest, losing a bunch of delivering? Frankly, near all of the dead tree stuff that shows up in my mailbox(6 days a week) is junk I throw away on my back to the house. The stuff I want is never particularly time sensitive. USPS could cut back from 6 deliveries a week to 2 and I'd be fine with it. And I'm the technophobic one. I realize that not everyone feels that way. But I do.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Something is implausible if you didn’t already know about it or don’t believe it? What exactly is your criteria?

No.
It's things I do know something about. I know enough to find links to claims that aren't plausible unlikely to be worth the bother, the time and data and such.

Give me a reason to believe that a guy in New York who hasn't ridden in a private vehicle in a month has a carbon footprint comparable to a guy who must drive 20 miles to get anywhere.

Maybe things have changed in the last 30 or so years. But I doubt that they've changed that much.
Tom

This is a Wiki about the cite whose article I linked:

IOP Publishing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

IOP Publishing (previously Institute of Physics Publishing) is the publishing company of the Institute of Physics. It provides publications through which scientific research is distributed worldwide, including journals, community websites, magazines, conference proceedings and books. The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. Any financial surplus earned by IOP Publishing goes to support physics through the activities of the Institute[citation needed].

The main IOP Publishing headquarters is located in Bristol, England, and the North American headquarters is in Philadelphia, United States. It also has regional offices in, Mexico City, Beijing, Tokyo, Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Sydney. It employs over 400 staff.

It should be pretty obvious from my posting history that I am sometimes skeptical of sources posters use, in which case, I check out the source and respond according to the trustworthiness of the source, not my personal butthurt that the poster disagreed with me in other threads.

But you do you. Post what you want, based upon your own personal intuition/current grudges held and science be damned.

Sorry I messed up your thread @Rhea.
Tom

 

[Rhea]

Dare I suggest, losing a bunch of delivering? Frankly, near all of the dead tree stuff that shows up in my mailbox(6 days a week) is junk I throw away on my back to the house. The stuff I want is never particularly time sensitive. USPS could cut back from 6 deliveries a week to 2 and I'd be fine with it. And I'm the technophobic one. I realize that not everyone feels that way. But I do.

I think the rural area would have a hard time wthout our daily delivery. Since many of us have difficulty getting cell and internet, we still pay bills using checks and letters - and they need to be on time.

As for the ads - they help pay the USPS bills (they basically subsidize our low cost first class postage), so send ‘em along with the regular mail, and then I can use it to mulch my garden.

Sorry I messed up your thread Rhea.

S’aight - we can get back onto topic….

 

[Toni]

In the US, those living in some very rural areas are heavily dependent on the USPS for delivery of medications and other time sensitive materials. FedEx, UPS and Amazon often use USPS for the last mile ( or more) of delivery of goods not easily found locally.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why is it that plug-in hybrids are always ignored, as if that technology does not exist, in the gas vs. EV debates?

Yeah, while I agree EVs aren't practical for most postal use that doesn't apply to hybrids. All that start-stop would be great for regenerative braking.

Why do you think they are impractical “for most postal use”?
They seem eminently practical to me, for the reasons stated in the OP.

You'll be spending an awful lot of power keeping the battery warm in many places and you won't always have the grid needed to charge them. A whole fleet of EVs based at one location is going to require an awful lot of power coming in which might exceed local capacity.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I did not know that. I always thought the urbanites were the most efficient.

They are.

Far more efficient to live in a dense urban place, with apartments and public transportation and walkable lives.

Tom

Note that walking actually isn't exactly carbon-friendly unless you were going to exercise in some fashion anyway. Food uses far more carbon for the energy produced than stuff like gasoline.

 

[Rhea]

Interesting artile on EVs in North Dakota. The market is small, but there seems to be some movement there.

Can EVs find allies in rural America? Look at North Dakota

DICKINSON, N.D. — North Dakota is a hostile environment for electric vehicles in just about every way. Nonetheless, they're getting the attention of some

www.eenews.net

 

[Toni]

Interesting artile on EVs in North Dakota. The market is small, but there seems to be some movement there.

Can EVs find allies in rural America? Look at North Dakota

DICKINSON, N.D. — North Dakota is a hostile environment for electric vehicles in just about every way. Nonetheless, they're getting the attention of some

www.eenews.net

Really good article! Evicting and extremely encouraging that there are some who can see EVs working in North Dakota. Weather in ND is extreme, and everything is pretty remote. I don’t live there but my state is also sparsely populated in large portions and we also have some very cold winter temps, 20 below not being uncommon in winters, and of course a lot of snow and ice.

Now my next question is: does altitude effect EV’s? How do they do climbing mountain roads?

 

[Derec]

The letter carrier fleet is ideal for electric vehicles;
parked in the same place every night
well known daily mileage
many starts and stops

I have been thinking the same.
Postal carrier trucks are prime application for battery electric vehicles.
Especially the frequent stops. No idling and regenerative braking would really pay dividends.

This is something governments can and should be doing to lead the way to reduced emissions.

Agree 100%. It should have bene done under Obama already. I think Obama and Biden talk a good game on climate, but implementation leaves a lot to be desired.