Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AutoModerator t1_j1a0drz wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

sjpllyon t1_j1a9erx wrote

Every time I see a story like this just reminds me of how my mum's boyfriend would say how when he used to be a milkman he used a little electric van. Just find it ironic how we've gone full circle but had to destroy the planet for it.

147

[deleted] t1_j1a9rc0 wrote

Replying to sjpllyon (#1,012,832)

To be fair, that little electric van would go like 20 miles at 25 mph. Electric cars have existed for a long time, it's just that recently, power densities have gotten high enough and costs have gotten low enough that they're starting to make practical sense.

85

LozNewman t1_j1acn94 wrote

Progress, and a good example for others!

3

Dorocche t1_j1aoz9i wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,012,871)

Worth pointing out that this isn't the result of the natural and inevitable flow of progress, but rather the result of heavy investment in electric vehicles. We could have had adequate electric vehicles pretty much the whole time if they'd been invested in during the 20s-- and getting this far (or any farther) was never guaranteed.

53

[deleted] t1_j1aqplz wrote

Replying to Dorocche (#1,014,221)

Not really. The modern electric car revolution has been driven by advancements in battery technology which were reliant on advances in general materials engineering. If we had invested in the 1990s we could be probably a decade or so ahead, but in the 1920s we would be stuck running around trying to figure out how to get more range out of lead acid batteries.

It's not that we couldn't have improved electric cars, but it's that so much of our technology is interdependent. To get our batteries to where they are today, so much advanced chemistry and engineering and computing is required which really didn't even start being technically feasible to look at until the latter half of the 20th century. There's a reason that the foundational work for lithium ion batteries didn't start happening till the 1970s.

33

nyclurker369 t1_j1askgf wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,014,355)

Nonsense. They would have focused on the composition of the batteries available to them at the time too. There are several well known and documented factors contributing to this topic. Some of which include the abundance and low cost of oil/gasoline and subsequent deliberate efforts to hinder investment in the R&D necessary to get us where we are finally with EVs today.

Regardless, we're all speculating. I'm just happy we're finally turning this curve. Hopefully, with the advancements in tech having grown exponentially now compared to then, our progress in EV technology and adoption can progress more quickly. 🤞🏼

−1

washingtonandmead t1_j1b55dd wrote

Damn, I was hoping they’d go back to getting them from WorkHorse

19

ifoundit1 t1_j1beggj wrote

Now if only they would deliver the mail instead of disrupting neighborhoods with deliberate inadequate performance within their assumed description, That'd be great.

−15

fman84 t1_j1bk56q wrote

If the "fuel" cost is cheaper than gas then I'm all for it. I wonder what would happen if they forget to plug in the fleet one night. Does the mail just not get delivered?

−8

joepeoplesvii t1_j1bn3bd wrote

Exploiting other country’s resources to make batteries so we can “save the planet” sounds wonderful….

−12

TheStuporUser t1_j1bvmuf wrote

Honestly I'm just glad to see them finally getting new vehicles, it's long overdue.

16

cleaner70001 t1_j1c0fh4 wrote

As if the mail service wasn't shitty enough already

−10

Vzdubz t1_j1c6l5m wrote

Till republicnazis get back and cancel the order ....

−4

3_14159td t1_j1cbkv0 wrote

Replying to fman84 (#1,016,776)

Considering the Grumman LLVs get somewhere in the range of 5-15 mpg due to the start-stop nature in most areas, even charging with a gasoline generator should come out ahead.

9

wilburthebud t1_j1cggom wrote

USPS is a giant organization, and getting facilities ready to charge/service EVs is a formidable undertaking. That said, EVs seem to be a no-brainer for postal delivery and short hauls.

4

DogtariousVanDog t1_j1chrse wrote

Replying to fman84 (#1,016,776)

I've seen this argument over and over again, also with conceptual electrical planes: "What if they forgot to charge? Or what if the battery goes empty while they are flying? Does the whole thing just fall down??"

Well, what happens actually? Probably the same as when you forget to fill the tank of your ICE vehicle.

8

H1ld3gunst t1_j1ctd49 wrote

Replying to joepeoplesvii (#1,017,094)

Most Lithium is sourced in the Atacama Desert.

Remember all those Oil Spills in the Caribbean? Exxon Mobile? Whole Oceans covered in Toxic Liquid? The Rainforests of Nigeria and Borneo being cut down? Saudi’s Arabia, Venezuela, Iran and Russia making Trillions while being able to hold the whole world hostage?

Now tell me that’s better than exploiting small amounts of Lithium in a lifeless desert in the democratic states of Chile and Bolivia.

10

Ineludible_Ruin t1_j1cx44q wrote

Was just reading the other day how if you take an ev vs standard ICEfrom the time they come off the assembly line, the ev doesn't take long to surpass the ICE in terms of being more carbon friendly to the environment. If you back it up though to the carbon footprint for getting the materials to make each, the story changes quite a bit. The carbon footprint of the EV is larger in the long run. Was quite surprising to read. Here's just one of the sources. https://www.industryweek.com/technology-and-iiot/article/22026518/lithium-batteries-dirty-secret-manufacturing-them-leaves-massive-carbon-footprint

−5

Sharkn91 t1_j1d4ip0 wrote

Are they gonna be selling the old trucks on the cheap?! Ive dreamt for a long time about modding the hell out of one, slamming it on it’s nuts, and making it into a mobile iced coffee truck in the business district downtown.

21

[deleted] t1_j1ddtih wrote

Replying to newt_girl (#1,018,667)

Probably slightly newer than 1985 unless it’s an old postal Jeep. The Grumman LLV started being used in 1987. Grumman built a fantastic vehicle that far exceeded its useful life expectancy. Had the GM engines been as good, they’d still be using the LLV for the next 20 years. It’s really a testament to the team that negotiated that contract on both sides and the engineering team at Grumman. Unfortunately, this new contract seems to be driven, not by what’s best for the taxpayer stakeholders but by what’s best for the Oshkosh Defense shareholders.

1

[deleted] t1_j1ddwjz wrote

Replying to Sharkn91 (#1,021,151)

You can be sure they will be going to auction.

Edit: LMFAO, who downvoted saying they will go to auction. That’s how they have to sell them. They will go to auction.

23

[deleted] t1_j1desml wrote

Replying to fman84 (#1,016,776)

You’re looking at one small section of what comprises TCO (total cost of ownership). EVs employed in this type of use case have a fantastic ROI vs legacy. It could cost double in energy costs and still save money over the lifecycle of the product. The only real argument against it is infrastructure, which is going to need to be built out eventually either way. For that reason, a transitional approach would be prudent, starting with dense urban routes and gradually expanding towards less dense routes. In some areas, gasoline powered vehicles may make more sense for decades. But you have to look at the entire picture not just what does fuel cost.

1

mindboglin789 t1_j1devw9 wrote

Not trying to be negative, but how is this uplifting news? Electric vehicles use an insane amount of cobalt for their batteries. I suggest everybody looks into the mining of cobalt in poor countries and I promise you’ll change your mind on EVs, they’re actually far worse for the environment

−3

ChrisPChicken04 t1_j1df9ls wrote

My company is considering switching to electric vehicles but we’ve found that larger vehicles in the commercial world can only go for like 2-4 hours of driving at a time on a full charge. It’s extremely problematic and we’re not sure what the work around is if we’re at some point required to switch

0

TRENLI t1_j1dfij6 wrote

The Congolese child labourers will be overjoyed!

−4

Catalina_wine_mix t1_j1dwf18 wrote

And the batteries built with child labor will be charged with fossil fuels. When will we work on a new energy source first, and then replacing things that burn fossil fuels, like homes, cars, factories...

−5

ExternalGrade t1_j1e8ptd wrote

These news is why I joined this channel: to remind myself that when there is enough popular demand things do get changed a little bit at a time. We regular folks do make a difference.

2

0LucidMoon0 t1_j1eh80m wrote

Reminder: Louis DeJoy is still the f*cking postmaster general.

1

alvarezg t1_j1eiq99 wrote

I wonder if Biden negotiated the change to EVs as a condition for letting DeJoy stay Postmaster General.

1

karsh36 t1_j1ekf18 wrote

Did they get rid of the trump era guy or something so they can start making non-dumb decisions?

2

DazzAntoni t1_j1frjgw wrote

Hopefully this will be followed up by having more of the power come from renewable energy sources. Wouldn't help much to have the vehicles themselves be zero-emission if they're being powered by coal plants, so that will probably have to be the next thing to push for.

2

joepeoplesvii t1_j1gtbkm wrote

Replying to H1ld3gunst (#1,020,271)

Are you stupid? Lithium ion batteries have more than just lithium and have a huge impact environmentally before and after production. I get the push and I am not for continued oil consumption but at the same time there aren’t enough considerations being made to the supporting structures and processes that are required for the construction and disposal of these batteries. Lithium literally explodes when exposed to water and currently there are no requirements for companies to recycle lithium ion batteries so what happens when these vehicles age in 10 years and require new batteries?

1

H1ld3gunst t1_j1hbu00 wrote

Replying to joepeoplesvii (#1,035,093)

1 ev needs 1 battery. Not millions of gallons.

The batteries are not recycled because they are reused first. Stationary power storage does not need new batteries. Only EVs do.

Just mind that a lot of the information out there is sponsored by the oil industry. If you try to read up on it in professional sources, ICE cars have been overtaken by EVs in sustainability long ago.

The sources arguing they are worse are easily found out: They usually start with a pre built ICE car, and only count environmental impact from combustion itself. But the EVs are calculated from scratch, including mining, production, transport. ICE cars need cobalt too. They have chips, too, in fact, almost the same amount. Oil needs to be drilled or fracked. Then refined. Transported. Now we are at EVs being more sustainable.

If we wanted to be fair, now we would start to calculate health problems caused by combustion taking place in front of where we work and where we live. All the particles and NO^x and the health care costs it produces every year.

Don’t call people stupid if you haven’t understood the statistics yourself.

2

joepeoplesvii t1_j1juib4 wrote

Replying to H1ld3gunst (#1,036,580)

I asked if you are stupid. The crystalline structure of the batteries break and the batteries become useless. Stationary batteries absolutely need replaced as they are subject to the same charge, drain, recharge cycle of any battery. Standard cars don’t use cobalt but fuel refining does. About 1 pound for a few million gallons where a standard lithium ion battery cathode is about a third cobalt which isn’t much until upscaled to millions of units. Cobalt is recyclable in both cases. There is misinformation on both sides as both have agendas and billions of dollars invested.

1