You must log in or register to comment.

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.


[deleted] t1_j1a9rc0 wrote

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.


Dorocche t1_j1aoz9i wrote

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.


[deleted] t1_j1aqplz wrote

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.


Visual_Collar_8893 t1_j1c3p43 wrote

You forgot to mention the oil and automotive industry actively discouraging investments into EVs.


[deleted] t1_j1c5qcd wrote

Sure, but at best we would have seen EV's happen a few years sooner. They weren't really cost competitive before just a few years ago.


plorrf t1_j1cp5li wrote

That’s what you get for talking sense on reddit ;-) Don’t worry, it’s just the silly hive mind kids have here… think we both love EVs


Dorocche t1_j1djs2h wrote

...What's "what they get" lol. They're not downvoted, and they're not even swarmed with replies.


nyclurker369 t1_j1askgf wrote

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. 🤞🏼


[deleted] t1_j1at0dy wrote

Yeah. Lead-acids. Maybe nickel cadmium or nickel iron for the fancier cars. Anyways, yeah, I'm glad that we are finally getting good electric cars :)


sjpllyon t1_j1cpdhi wrote

Also worth pointing out that some of the first cars were electric, and the is quite an odd picture of this Victorian woman on an electric scooter.


HchrisH t1_j1dfu7k wrote

My mail truck goes about 20 miles at like 5-15 mph, and it still only gets 5-8 mpg. Bring on the electric trucks.


[deleted] t1_j1em4d2 wrote

Totally. Mail routes are the perfect use case for electric.


DSPbuckle t1_j1c16ul wrote

You can only postpone judgement day from starting. You can’t stop it.


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.


[deleted] t1_j1ddwjz wrote

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.


[deleted] t1_j1dqn12 wrote



[deleted] t1_j1dqzch wrote

Umm… they’re retiring them numbnuts.. that’s the entire point of buying 160k new trucks. Yes, they will go to auction as they are removed from service.


washingtonandmead t1_j1b55dd wrote

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


TheStuporUser t1_j1bvmuf wrote

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


newt_girl t1_j1c527p wrote

My cousin is a postal carrier and their truck is a 1985.


[deleted] t1_j1ddtih wrote

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.


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.


LozNewman t1_j1acn94 wrote

Progress, and a good example for others!


ChrisAintBored t1_j1doedv wrote

Yeah! Lets go Canoo! Get that contract!


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.


karsh36 t1_j1ekf18 wrote

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


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.


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.


0LucidMoon0 t1_j1eh80m wrote

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


alvarezg t1_j1eiq99 wrote

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


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


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


Vzdubz t1_j1c6l5m wrote

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


TRENLI t1_j1dfij6 wrote

The Congolese child labourers will be overjoyed!


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.


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...


alexa-play-idontcare t1_j1c0cex wrote

please tell me they’re not buying them from tesla


[deleted] t1_j1df152 wrote

Tesla is not even one of the 5 proposals. Why are you worried about Tesla without even knowing who is bidding on this?


alexa-play-idontcare t1_j1djvxw wrote

don’t want mail trucks blowing up


[deleted] t1_j1do0jv wrote

Hate to tell you, that’s the reason they’re being replaced. Engine fires are the issue with the Grumman LLV as they have aged past their expected use. I’m not sure why you think a Tesla has more risk.


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?


3_14159td t1_j1cbkv0 wrote

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.


DogtariousVanDog t1_j1chrse wrote

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.


Aerysvv t1_j1csuti wrote

I’m a rural carrier. They would probably just ask everyone to use their own cars. We can do that


vasya349 t1_j1db40v wrote

In what world does every single vehicle just not get plugged in? Charging is not much more complex than locking a car


[deleted] t1_j1desml wrote

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.


cleaner70001 t1_j1c0fh4 wrote

As if the mail service wasn't shitty enough already


[deleted] t1_j1df6a2 wrote

And driving a vehicle that’s cheaper to operate and more safe, reliable, and ergonomic, for the driver, would reduce the quality of your mail delivery somehow?


joepeoplesvii t1_j1bn3bd wrote

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


H1ld3gunst t1_j1ctd49 wrote

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.


joepeoplesvii t1_j1gtbkm wrote

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?


H1ld3gunst t1_j1hbu00 wrote

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.


joepeoplesvii t1_j1juib4 wrote

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.


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.


marzipanbitchfactory t1_j1c2ztt wrote

I get my mail on time. And I know for a fact my brother was forced to work 60 hour weeks until he had to get a medical work restriction. They’re REALLY working hard. So maybe redirect your anger.