I guess the first question is: how many miles does a mail car drive each day, at least on average? Obviously the EV mail car wouldn't need as large of a battery as the F-150 Lightning (a pickup) I'm thinking about getting, because mail cars won't carry that much weight. But it has to carry a lot more than, say, the Ford Mach-e is meant to regularly carry and thus needs a higher capacity battery.
So if the average route is 100 miles and the weight carried is 100 pounds, that's sounds do-able for an EV to be cost-effective. But if we're talking about 200 miles per day carrying 500 pounds of mail, 6 days per week (read: lots of large discharges and recharges each day, not just a normal consumer driving an EV like that only a few times per year) then we're probably talking about wearing out the battery and probably the electric motors faster than is cost-effective.
I'm not anti-EV. I said I'm interested in getting one myself. I'm just skeptical in seeing the EV as the ultimate solution in all situations -- especially when the gubment gets involved. And that's not even getting into the yuge demand on power grids if all mail carriers all over the country charged their cars in the evening at the same time.
Maybe EV's would be do-able in zip codes with routes no longer than 50 or 60 miles and in the south so that the home station would have solar panels to charge up solar batteries to put into the cars (at least 75% of the time or so, it doesn't have to be an all or none decision to be effective).
If I was on the USPS' engineering team I'd have to answer those types of questions before I gave the EV idea my thumbs up, and even then only for the post offices EV's would be efficient at. But then, I'm just a dumb programmer, not a smart politician.
“probably the electric motors faster than is cost-effective.”
Lasts longer and cheaper to overhaul than gasoline engine. UBER drivers are going over 300k with no maintenance.
“And that’s not even getting into the yuge demand on power grids if all mail carriers all over the country charged their cars in the evening at the same time.”
We presently have about 20% unused capacity at night.
Here is the base of my opposition: Not because they are EV vehicles.
It is because it is an emotional and political decision, not an analysis by people who have looked at the pros and cons.
This
is being pushed by people shouting "WE NEED TO DO THIS NOW BECAUSE IT IS A ONCE-IN-A-GENERATION OPPORTUNITY!"
They don't care if it is a good or bad decision. If it is a good decision, they all get to bask in the warm glow of having done their part at pushing the "Green" agenda another few inches up the slope.
If it is a bad decision-no big deal. Nobody is going to lose their job.
That is what I am against. This is largely being pushed by Leftists with an agenda. I don't doubt that there are non-Leftists who would ask the appropriate questions and if left to their own methods and devices, would make a reasonable decision.
But the fact that they are going with the decision to acquire fewer EV in the face of screaming threats from The White House makes me certain I do see this in the right light.
The wear and tear of a EV designated as a postal vehicle would be different than the EV that is used as a commuter car.
EVs are idiotic for the USA. We have loads more oil and gas reserves to exploit and use for transportation. It is the green nut cases and Democrats who hold us back on this exploration and drilling. So directly burning them in internal combustion engines, instead of burning them (coal) to make electricity for EVs. We have loads of wide open spaces where EVs make no sense. Such as Nebraska and Montana. Most of our Western states. Southern States.
63% of our electricity comes from coal and natural gas, and add another 3% for burning “petroleum”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States#Electricity_generation
China, Korea and Japan are better suited for EVs. Just about all their cities are super congested with traffic. EVs excel in such stop and go traffic. They do not have the vast gas and oil reserves that we have in America. So they can use hydroelectric, solar, wind, nukes and burn coal to send electricity for their EVs if they like. US is a much different case.
Western Europe is densely populated, so better suited for EVs than America. With its vast oil and gas production, Russia should ban all EVs.