USPS sued over purchasing gasoline powered delivery vehicles.

[Olds442]

States, activists sue USPS over purchase of gas-powered mail trucks | Engadget

Both 16 states and activists have sued the US Postal Service over its plan to buy gas-powered mail delivery trucks..

www.engadget.com

US Postal Service
The US Postal Service is facing more than just stern warnings over its decision to buy mostly gas-powered mail delivery trucks. Environmental activist groups (including the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club) and 16 states have filed lawsuits in California and New York State to challenge the Postal Service's Next Generation Delivery Vehicle purchasing decision. They argue the USPS's environmental review was flawed and illegal, ignoring the "decades of pollution" the combustion-engine trucks would produce.
The USPS allegedly violated the National Environmental Policy Act by committing to buy 165,000 delivery vehicles (just 10 percent of them electric) without first conducting a "lawful" environmental review. The service only started its review six months after it had signed a contract, according to the California lawsuit. Both suits accuse the USPS of using botched estimates, including "unrealistically high" battery costs as well as wildly low fuel prices and emissions levels. They also noted that contract recipient Oshkosh Defense has no experience producing EVs.

The lawsuit also pointed out that the gas versions of the next-gen vehicle weren't much kinder to the climate than their roughly 30-year-old predecessors. While the 14.7MPG without air conditioning beats the earlier models' 8.2MPG, that fuel economy drops to just 8.6MPG with air conditioning turned on. Many of the powerplant-independent upgrades revolve around ergonomics, such as easier access to packages.

In a statement to the Associated Press, USPS spokesperson Kim Frum maintained that the organization implemented a "robust and thorough review" that met NEPA requirements. Previously, Postmaster General Louis DeJoy maintained that the institution couldn't afford to buy more EVs and needed to concentrate on basic infrastructure upgrades. Unlike many government agencies, the Postal Service is legally required to be self-sufficient and can't request government help to tackle deficits and debts.

 

[disaffected]

Can we just make USPS a non money draining swamp of mediocrity before we worry about what they drive?

 

[WillyW]

No mail for you hippie!

 

[HearHear]

The USPS has really come a long way. They do a really good job where I live, and even deliver some packages on Sunday. I think Fed Ex is the worst, had very bad experiences with them. That said, I agree with the environmentalists. USPS needs to look forward, not backward, other carriers like UPS already have electric delivery trucks.

 

[dspelman]

It was really irresponsible of the USPS to sign a contract for gas powered vehicles.
There are some really good electrics and/or hybrids on the market and they could easily have had them custom done at little or no extra cost.

I don't want to accuse anyone there of corruption or self-dealing, of course. That would never happen.

 

[TheX]

USPS is really good here. Rats-ass for their trucks.

 

[Olds442]

Fuck USPS

they broke my Ornettes GT, the futhermuckers.

 

[electric head]

USPS around where I live must be contractors.They drive USPS trucks but they dress like bums and are lazy as shit..

 

[Tone deaf]

Did anyone bother to determine where these 165,000 EVs would be charged? Is the USPS building a nuclear power plant?

 

[pnuggett]

Pretty sure they aren't in favor of a contract with Tesla to build EV delivery vehicles.

 

[Dolebludger]

USPS delivery trucks are one of the best uses for EVs. They run a prescribed daily route usually less than the EV range and are parked at night with plenty of time for charging. It is stupid to use gasoline power for this purpose.

 

[dc007]

USPS is really good here. Rats-ass for their trucks.

Wisdom

 

[Rocco Crocco]

The DiMarzio pickup I ordered took 3 weeks to get here. Let them burn!

 

[Tone deaf]

I hope they do it. It'll make me lots of more money. However good an idea sounds, it would make sense to look at all the angles.

165,000 EVs will require the equivalent of 12 average nuclear power plants to charge. Of course they all won't charge at once or in the same neighborhood but, the average post office with say 50 vehicles will need 360kWhs to charge the fleet...daily. The increase demand on the national power grid would not go unnoticed. An additional unintended consequence will be soaring electricity prices, most of which is created with fossil fuels. Therefore, the price of fossil fuels will rise, too.

Because of their duty cycles (far more usage than average civilian vehicle) they will likely "wear out" their batteries in under three years, requiring new batteries and the disposal or reuse of approximately 25,000 tons of toxic waste (that is exactly how used EV batteries are referred to) every three years (estimating 300lbs of batteries per vehicle). That's $25 million for disposal of said batteries (at today's prices) and $2.1B (best case) in battery replacements every three years or so. I also very much doubt that US EV recycling capacity would be able to handle this volume of batteries in the near future. EV recycling is very inefficient and expensive.

Add to that the fact that there is not enough lithium in the world to satisfy our demand for it. Don't believe me? How about this guy:

Musk Is Right - Not Enough Lithium for EV Batteries!

Elon Musk tweeted...Lithium prices are up more than 80% this year and nickel prices have gyrated heavily amid trading turmoil in London.

www.independentsentinel.com

If we electrify all 166 million registered cars in the USA, that would draw the equivalent of 12,000 average nuke plants. We currently have 86 operational nuke plants in the USA with 2 additional plants under construction. I think that we will be a little light on the power generation side of the equation.

I'm not anti-EV, quite the opposite (my financial wellbeing is directly correlated with EV adoption). However, they are not all that they are cracked up to be and every action causes a reaction. The law of unintended consequences is going to bite us ALL very hard when people start to figure this all out and by then, it'll be too late.

 

[Tone deaf]

The DiMarzio pickup I ordered took 3 weeks to get here. Let them burn!

Probably not a good expression if we're talking a potential fleet of 165,000 lithium ion powered vehicles...

 

[TheX]

Did anyone bother to determine where these 165,000 EVs would be charged? Is the USPS building a nuclear power plant?

Ain't nobody got time for logic and shit....mister...

 

[Olds442]

I hope they do it. It'll make me lots of more money. However, good an idea sounds, it would make sense to look at all the angles.

165,000 EVs will require the equivalent of 12 average nuclear power plants to charge. Of course they all won't charge at once or in the same neighborhood but, the average post office with say 50 vehicles will need 360kWhs to charge the fleet...daily. The increase demand on the national power grid would not go unnoticed. An additional unintended consequence will be soaring electricity prices, most of which is created with fossil fuels. Therefore, the price of fossil fuels will rise, too.

Because of their duty cycles (far more usage than average civilian vehicle) they will likely "wear out" their batteries in under three years, requiring new batteries and the disposal or reuse of approximately 25,000 tons of toxic waste (that is exactly how used EV batteries are referred to) every three years (estimating 300lbs of batteries per vehicle). That's $25 million for disposal of said batteries (at today's prices) and $2.1B (best case) in battery replacements every three years or so. I also very much doubt that US EV recycling capacity would be able to handle this volume of batteries in the near future. EV recycling is very inefficient and expensive.

Add to that the fact that there is not enough lithium in the world to satisfy our demand for it. Don't believe me? How about this guy:

Musk Is Right - Not Enough Lithium for EV Batteries!

Elon Musk tweeted...Lithium prices are up more than 80% this year and nickel prices have gyrated heavily amid trading turmoil in London.

www.independentsentinel.com

If we electrify all 166 million registered cars in the USA, that would draw the equivalent of 12,000 average nuke plants. We currently have 86 operational nuke plants in the USA with 2 additional plants under construction. I think that we will be a little light on the power generation side of the equation.

I'm not anti-EV, quite the opposite (my financial wellbeing is directly correlated with EV adoption). However, they are not all that they are cracked up to be and every action causes a reaction. The law of unintended consequences is going to bite us ALL very hard when people start to figure this all out and by then, it'll be too late.

i get that you're in the industry and all but, how do predict the number of miles per vehicle, and the sizes of the batteries, and the route lengths, regional weather difference, seasonal weather differences?

you throw out some big numbers, and i'm sure there's some gage, but it's a hella calculous or trig equation, isn't it with so many variables?

 

[Marshall & Moonshine]

We gotta stamp out climate change.

 

[rcole_sooner]

I heard cow farts are causing climate change.

 

[KSG_Standard]

We gotta stamp out climate change.

We should start by eliminating the USPS. The majority of the mail they deliver is junk, at subsidized rates. Think of the trees!