Postal Service Set to Lead the Way in Deploying Electric Fleet 56 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
On August 28th, the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Postal Service published the results of a feasibility study titled, "Electrification of Delivery Vehicles." While the feasibility study reaches a foregone conclusion and recommends the purchase of a 3,000 unit demonstration fleet, I was surprised by the high level of Federal subsidies the Inspector General thought necessary to bring EVs within Postal Service capital investment policies. I was even more surprised by the conclusion that the tipping point in the economic analysis was revenue from ancillary vehicle to grid, or V2G, services.
The Postal Service operates a fleet of 219,000 vehicles, including 146,000 delivery vehicles. The feasibility study focused on the long-life vehicles, or LLVs, that have been a part of the American landscape since the late 80's.
The current version of the LLV is built on a GM truck chassis, costs the Postal Service about $19,000 and gets about 10 miles per gallon; which isn't bad for the kind of low-speed stop-start driving on a typical mail route. The average LLV is driven about 18 miles a day and roughly 96% of the LLV fleet drives less than 40 miles a day. The vast majority of LLVs are parked at Postal Service facilities from 5 p.m. till 8 a.m.
The proposal evaluated in the Postal Service feasibility study would replace the internal combustion engine and drive train with an electric drive and 20 kWh of lithium-ion batteries of unspecified chemistry. The projected cost of a 3,000-unit fleet of electric LLVs, or E-LLVs, is $120 million, or $40,000 per unit. The projected cost of associated charging station infrastructure and training is $16.75 million.
The most striking aspect of the Inspector General's report is the fact that it was written from the perspective of an EV buyer, rather than an EV seller. After years of reading up-beat promotional materials that talk about ten-year battery lives and seven- to ten-year payback periods, it was refreshing to see a more skeptical buyer's analysis that:
- Assumed the battery pack would have to be replaced after five years;
- Assumed a fifty percent reduction in repair and maintenance costs;
- Assumed a stable correlation between gasoline and electricity prices;
- Required internal returns of thirty percent per year like you see in most businesses;
- Required payback periods of less than three years like you see in most businesses;
- Concluded that substantial Federal subsidies were essential; and
- Concluded that ancillary revenues from V2G services were essential.
The Inspector General's report was not overly kind to E-LLVs, but then I've never expected undue kindness from fleet buyers who are invariably constrained by capital spending policies that require a return on investment, as opposed to a return of investment. The good news for EV developers is that the Inspector General was able to put together a plan that worked for the Postal Service. The bad news is the plan will be difficult for other fleet users to duplicate because the feasibility study assumes that:
- The Postal Service will get grants for 74% of the cost difference between a standard LLV and an E-LLV;
- The Postal Service will save roughly $1,300 per vehicle year from reduced fueling costs;
- The Postal Service will save roughly $1,500 per vehicle year from reduced maintenance; and
- The Postal Service will earn roughly $2,300 per vehicle year from V2G services.
The Inspector General's report analyzed four possible scenarios. In the basic scenario of no grants and no V2G revenue, the E-LLVs were a poor investment that had a negative return over ten years. In two middle of the road scenarios that included (a) grants without V2G revenues and (b) V2G revenues without grants, the payback periods were in the five-year range and internal rates of return were 15% to 20%. In a best-case scenario that included both grants and V2G revenue, the payback period was under two years and the internal rate of return was over 60%. Since the Postal Services has influential friends in high places, I think it's a safe bet that they'll be able to negotiate the details of a best case project.
The only thing that concerns me about the strategy the Postal Service has adopted for its E-LLV demonstration fleet is the long-term stability of V2G revenue. The E-LLV fleet will be on the road every day from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., the precise period when demands on the power grid are greatest. So while the proposed fleet of 3,000 E-LLVs will have the theoretical ability to provide 45 MW of frequency regulation services, it will only be able to provide frequency regulation services when demand for those services is relatively low. While I've not been able to find any detailed estimates of the national demand for frequency regulation services during off-peak hours, I have to assume that the aggregate demand for frequency regulation is smaller than demand for other grid-based storage systems. I also have to assume that V2G services will compete directly with alternatives like the flywheel systems that Beacon Power (BCON) is developing which will be available 24/7.
Overall, I believe the Postal Service proposal to deploy a fleet of 3,000 E-LLVs presents an unparalleled opportunity to provide a reliable real-world testing laboratory for ideas that have not yet been reduced to practice. The Postal Service has long promised "neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night, nor the winds of change, nor a nation challenged, will stay us from the swift completion of our appointed rounds." Since one of the biggest challenges facing America is the efficient use of energy and the prevention of waste, I can't imagine a better organization to lead the way.
In a perfect world, the Postal Service would break its planned E-LLV fleet into as many as a half-dozen subgroups that would each use a different battery chemistry from a different vendor. The willing industry participants I can identify off the top of my head include Altair Nanotechnologies (ALTI), Ener1 (HEV), Johnson Controls (JCI), Valence Technologies (VLNC), and A123 Systems (IPO pending). With proper monitoring, the amount and relative uniformity of the data generated in the first few years of testing for both EV and V2G applications could be priceless.
DISCLOSURE: None
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 56 comments:
A point I'm missing is the idea of selling energy back to the grid. I thought the vehicle batteries would be charged at night during their off use hours when electric rates might be lower. In the analysis by the PO is it the overnight period when they expect to sell energy back to the grid? Are they assuming they can sell energy back at some other period when they can receive a higher value? As you say, the E-LLV's are in use delivering mail during peak electrical energy demands.
seekingalpha.com/artic...
proposed petroleum saving is zilch?
> jack
What a great idea! A real time, real world, test of many "20 kWh ... lithium-ion batteries of unspecified chemistry." I wish that investors would hold T.E.A. parties demanding that this be done before any more taxpayer money is wasting on betting on anything and everything "lithium."
I am speaking in Seattle on October 6 at the Metals in Aerospace Conference sponsored by Metal-pages.com; my topic is Recycling Rare Metals in a Closed Loop." My audience is also to be procurement officials and engineers, but some investors always show up.
I propose that you and I get together in Seattle and do a diavlog (A video dialog) on the two conferences, which we can post on SeekingAlpha. What do you think?
Congratulations on your invitation to speak to EESAT. Your insistence on bringing the facts out about the true risk of Li-on investing and EV technology has certainly drawn out critics who question your knowledge base. I appreciate your ability to continue to present the facts and not just opinion.
I am surprised that the proposed post office study did not explicitly target a Hybrid vs. pure EV approach. The entire cost of the project is $136 million. That includes buying the fleet and charging stations. We subsidize the postal service much more than this amount anyway. Why not just call it a grant for advanced automobile study, then try all of the different technologies under real world conditions. This might actually be a good way to use the stimulus money in a very productive way.
these are not 'CNG test vehicles'.
they have been running the fleet here for at least 5 yrs.
oil stays clean, no need to change it unless you have nothing better to do with your time.
> jack
For your answer and reference to your earlier article on frequency regulation. In my more simplistic consideration it is easy to understand a pumped storage facility being filled at night and then being used during the daytime to generate energy when needs are greater. Thinking of many batteries for momentary use for frequency regulation is a different sort of application. So thanks for describing those other sorts of FR systems.
For the PO E-LLV's analysis apparently the assumption is that they would be plugged into the grid at a time they would be really most helpful. If they are in use on the streets during peak energy use times that seems unlikely. They could be providing FR during off use time (5 pm - 7 am) but the need or benefit at that time would seem to be much less.
john, the Postal Service website says "We operate the world’s largest fleet of alternative fuel-capable vehicles — more than 43,000 — that can use clean fuels such as ethanol, compressed natural gas, liquid propane gas, electricity and bio-diesel." A private website for Intermountain Gas Company pegs the number of CNG vehicles operated by the Post Office at about 7,000.
www.usaee.org/usaee200...
This is why I love commenters because they frequently know things that I don't know.
I really like the multiple Li vendors idea as it will sort those who can from those who can't. Many battery maker will fall in real use by past experience.
Maybe why CL batteries were not included is none are available?
2 assumptions I don't agree with is electric and gas prices will stay equal in the price rise and as B2G will pay for it. And oil will go up much faster. Cost of the second battery pack in 5 yrs which should be far less by everyones opinion.
And the pack's resale value is included for recycling if nothing else?. Lead batteries get 20% core charge now.
Most tested Lithium batteries at 5 yrs still have 80% capacity. Such a used battery could be used on the shorter routes for another 5, maybe 10 yrs.
That truck being a special made truck could deliver on its purpose with any battery on most of the routes. Seldom are the trucks "loaded to the gills". I believe the batteries will out last the truck (at least for some of the chemistry's). There is a huge grid draw spike in the predawn hours (mostly from the breakfast appliance users). I still don't believe there will be much of a monetary advantage to the deal. Like anything else there should be a different power source in different environments. What happens in the cold; or the Hot. Will there be air conditioning heating loads? AC is a big load in the desert. The final report will be "cooked" to satisfy some political need I suspect.
a.palmer, I don't have a feel for the average mail weight that an LLV has to haul at the beginning of a route, but it wouldn't surprise me to find that it's a pretty substantial number.
661murray, the IG apparently had fairly detailed discussions with the PMJ ISO, the distribution system operator for a block of eastern states from Pennsylvania eastward. The number the IG used for frequency regulation value per MW of capacity is less than the value that companies like Beacon are anticipating for 24/7 operations. So on balance it didn't strike me as an unreasonable number today. What concerns me is what will the per vehicle value be if there are 300,000 EVs in a service area instead of 3,000. My hunch is that plentiful supply could well drive values way down.
For the record, the USPS is not government; they are run as a business. I believe it was Richard Nixon who started us down that road. However, it is a national resource and using it for a proving ground is a great idea. I believe that the thorough record keeping of the USPS will enable evaluation of the batteries b;y manufacturer.
jerrydd is right about the assumptions. Oil is going up, probably dramatically. The main thing is that there will be a test. We don't really need to justify testing on an economic basis within the USPS, the larger application makes it a great idea.
John -
I have followed a number of your recent articles, and in particular, this argument over battery types. Can you answer a question of mine?
In terms of vehicle systems, why are we chasing batteries of any type right now?
I have seen reports on at least two working production prototype EVs that use compressed air storage rather than a battery. You plug them in, and the tank is pressurized with an onboard electric pump. The car's engine is simply a high efficiency air piston designed or a microturbine that uses the compressed air to drive the wheels. Why even bother with a battery when you can just use a high pressure air tank.
In addition, everything I read indicates that the future of electric vehicle storage is to be found in supercapacitors not batteries. Batteries in general appear to be a technological stop gap. Seems to be me it would make more sense to use air cars as today's stop gap (technology is ready now, no metals demand, no recycle/disposal problem, etc) until practical supercapacitors come along.
Any thoughts?
Supercapacitors are wonderful devices that have a lot of utility in transportation applications, but they'll never power electric vehicles because they go from fully charged to fully discharged in about 15 seconds. One of the biggest potential uses of supercapacitors is being tested in Korea where they've put recuperative braking on subway trains, are dumping the electricity into supercapacitors, and are using the stored electricity to accelerate the train away from the station. During one of my Storage Week panels, a representative from the New York Metro system said if they could find a way to implement recuperative braking on the New York subway systems they could save up to 30% of their electricity use. But none of that is electricity to power something for distance. It's electricity to assist in getting a stationary object moving.
bobbybutte, the political decisions have already been made that EVs have to be built and tested, and those tests are going to require massive subsidies. If I wanted to develop a test that would give me reliable results and the most value for the testing dollar, I'd be out searching for standardized fleet of vehicles that all perform the same basic functions and put the same basic stresses on the system. That way the biggest variables I'd have to contend with are temperature, terrain and other non-human factors. So regardless of what we think of management practices at the Postal Service, it's an ideal testing laboratory.
I have to agree with John that V2G is very valuable as it saves the utilities a lot in rotating generation that is only partly used. Not only that but peak shaving units farther from powerplants can relieve power surges and demands from both customers and RE, other producers, increase power quality, something lacking now and really bad during peak times.
Postal vehicles are available during the morning peak and most are back before 3pm Plus after the packs are removed after 5 yrs they still have a lot of capacity so could be charged at night and be available all day.
Utilities pay 2-8x's the normal rate for such services so a very viable business model. The only problem is in 10 yrs so much EV's, PHEV's with 50-200kw each inverters could drive the price paid down.
They will easily, since most will be parked almost all day, night, make variable electric supplies like wind not a problem after about 8 yrs when enough are available.
This is the only market for the way too many new battery companies now going for the way too few EV's, PHEV's that will be made in the next 4-5 yrs which can support only a few companies.
How are these issues being addressed in the EV/HEV feild?
This project builds electric vehicle momentum.
While it may resemble another govt cash for clunkers, it builds the technology and helps progress along the learning and cost curves.
USPS 'as a business' began in 1971.
prior to that as a patronage agency of govt they had no capital budget.
in the 1930's each county seat in each state got a new post office building (paid for by the taxpayers) whether they need it or not. in many cases the courthouse & post office building were one & the same. some of the ones i have visited in columbia SC, knoxville TN, texarkana TX-AR (right on the state line), hagerstown MD are beautifully appointed.
in other cases (smaller towns) typically the P.O. was in a rented building built by an investor & the annual rent bill on a national basis was costing them a fortune. having separate capital and operating budgets after 1971 resolved that problem.
the USPS technical development center (TDC) here in merrifield VA has done some interesting things, in paper ink & adhesives technology, you probably noticed you don't lick your stamps anymore.
the design criteria for the local delivery trucks that you see all over were established by TDC. i believe the truck bodies are built by flxible (an operating usit of northrop grumman) in loudonville OH.
> jack
I have stated a number of times in defense of John (and Jack) that commercial Li-ion cells (the ones in everyday use) have an optimal operating temperature range of 0-40degC (32 to 104 degF), with the extreme range being -20 to 60degC (-4 to 140degF). Beyond either temperature and you greatly shorten the cell and battery life, with the added "bonus" of a safety hazard at the high end.
I know that someone will bring up the ghost of heating and cooling the pack, but from experience this is as much art as it is engineering. Temperature control of a pack of any size is difficult and can greatly affect performance and life.
On Sep 04 02:18 PM kajay920 wrote:
> RWCMom, I am glad you mentioned the geographical element. Don't batteries
> have a strong aversion to operating in cold weather. Many of us have
> had our car batteries go dead in the cold, my hi-tech lithium bateries
> in my cordless power tools have huge performance issues in cold weather.
>
> How are these issues being addressed in the EV/HEV feild?
I'm a big fan of HEVs because they've given us 10 years of solid performance that meets human needs while cutting fuel use by 40%. That's remarkable progress. The last 60% strikes me as a much bigger challenge that requires giant leaps rather than baby steps. Human history with giant leaps is not good. The one thing a large scale test will give us for certain is a list of potential problems with lines through some, circles around others and question marks next to the rest. Then we can make a rational decision about next steps.
The other 2 thoughts i had (hey 3 thoughts for the day, wow)
1 - this does look like a natural for CNG i wonder how it compares to CNG.
2 - this looks like a renault kangoo, which is available in CNG, LPG and in some locations/special orders electric and hybrid electric.
the kangoo seems to have been a test bed for renault anyway...
they are expecting a lot of money from V2G, and it seems to be a vary depending on location or energy provider, so its another factor that will be very real for some, an illusion for others
Operating Variances Projected Fuel Savings + $43,254,274 Maintenance Savings + $51,937,894
Replacement Battery - Year 5 - $19,106,233
they expect maintenance savings to be greater than fuel savings.
battery replacement costs cost half of the fuel savings.
I would not write-off the electric vehicle so simply, further to that, i would recommend 2 general tests for investing before checking out the numbers
rule 1, does compete with China or does it supply to China?
rule 2, how will 'Better Place' impact this?
then check the numbers to see if its a good investment position.
rule 1 is fairly obvious
rule 2 is in regards to a electric car company that i would recommend researching, in a nut shell, they will sell miles similar to how a phone company sells minutes. they will have a cash cow in Israel and Denmark (where Petrol/Diesel cars will basically become extinct) and quite possibly they will grow in Japan to replace 20% of car kilometres by being provider to the taxi industry (2% of cars). Can you imagine Japan importing 20% less fuel.
If they can take over the taxi industry and the 20% of a country's kms it holds, then they can get the next 18% of cars which do the next 60% of a country's km. think 80/20 rule. 20% of cars to 80% of the driving. so with 20% of cars better place et al. could displace 80% of world passenger vehicular miles (read petrol/diesel consumption). I would not recommend betting against this.
Wizard and Don, the numbers are absolutely mind-boggling, which is why I think baby steps are more likely than quantum leaps. We are at the dawn of a new industrial revolution that will take decades to unfold. As long as people are spending somebody else's money, there will be immense pressure for extreme solutions. When it comes to spending their own money, the pressure will tend to affordable solutions. If I've learned anything over 58 years it's that the future is never as wonderful as I dream it could be or as bad as I fear it might be. I suppose that's just another way of saying that over the long term the consensus always gets it wrong. As investors, I think our focus has to be the intermediate steps that are almost certain to benefit as the future unfolds.
I have edited your words of wisdom, and I am (almost) shamelessly appropriating the following lines:
"... the numbers are absolutely mind-boggling....We are at the dawn of a new industrial revolution that will take decades to unfold. As long as people are spending somebody else's money, there will be immense pressure for extreme solutions. When it comes to spending their own money, the pressure will tend to affordable solutions. If I've learned anything over 69 years it's that the future is never as wonderful as I dream it could be or as bad as I fear it might be. I suppose that's just another way of saying that over the long term the consensus always gets it wrong. As investors, I think our focus has to be the intermediate steps that are almost certain to benefit as the future unfolds."
You have just written the complete text for the Guido Sarducci School of Mamnagement's course on investing in high-tech (the overview).
If anyone thinks you have it wrong let them explain their disagreement logically and with numerical data.
For centuries the collective wealth was wasted by tyrants and thugs for the purpose of achieving their own glory and power over others. Mostly it was wasted on monuments and war. Today we have acheived a more democratic way to waste our wealth, governemnt funding of research adn development with a specific perdetermined goal. Canute couldn't stop the tides and the nineteenth century Missouri legislature could not make pi equal 22/7. The twenty-first century solons will not be able to bend discovery and creativity to their will; sadly, I suspect they will soon return to war and theft for their personal aggrandisement as they become bored with climate change and wealth redistribution that is simply against human nature everywhere.
Enough with philosophy. How can we make short term money from other people's hopes and dreams?
Since we'll both be dead in the long-term, I'm planning to focus on the low-cost solutions like micro, mild and full hybrids that will be within the budgets of most American and European consumers. Basic statistics tells me the bulk of the business is in the center of the bell shaped curve instead of the right hand tail. World demographics tells me that our world really has two curves that overlap. The curve everyone focuses on has a population of 500 million and relatively large budgets. The curve everyone ignores has a population of 6 billion with smaller individual budgets but a far larger collective buying power.
I'm convinced that PHEVs and EVs will end up at the bottom of the foodchain because price sensitivity increases as battery size increases. Battery cost per watt hour is irrelevant when I want 5 wh for a cellphone or even 37 wh for my new laptop. It's a bit more important when I want 1,500 wh for a Prius that will save me 40% on my gasoline bill. It's critical when I want 20,000 wh for a car with a plug. For small applications, producers can double, triple or even quadruple the battery price and as a consumer I'll just grin and bear it. When it comes to a bidding war, the American who needs 20,000 wh for a car will always lose to the 40 Chinese who need 500 wh each for a bicycle.
The five-year battery replacement is a huge red flag. The report says LLVs average about 6000 miles/year. A 5 year/60k mile life is a joke. The Volt's 10 year/150k mile warranty is typical for the industry. I can't think of a single mainstream automaker or battery vendor targeting less than 10/100k.
So, do we accept the number from the automakers and battery vendors whose business depends on getting this right or the number which maximizes the cash payments the USPS gets from the DOE?
I also have to echo John's point. Cycle life claims currently are in controlled settings. As are any type of calendar life claims. Speaking from a military/aerospace perspective, ~5-7 years of life is what is expected, and in many cases even less.
On Sep 06 09:04 PM doggydogworld wrote:
> Nice article, but I have one correction. You say this report was
> "written from the perspective of an EV buyer, rather than an EV seller".
> In reality, it was written from the perspective of a subsidy-seeker.
> The USPS has a clear incentive to inflate the estimated costs and
> downplay expected performance.
>
> The five-year battery replacement is a huge red flag. The report
> says LLVs average about 6000 miles/year. A 5 year/60k mile life is
> a joke. The Volt's 10 year/150k mile warranty is typical for the
> industry. I can't think of a single mainstream automaker or battery
> vendor targeting less than 10/100k.
>
> So, do we accept the number from the automakers and battery vendors
> whose business depends on getting this right or the number which
> maximizes the cash payments the USPS gets from the DOE?
"The average LLV is driven about 18 miles a day and roughly 96% of the LLV fleet drives less than 40 miles a day. The vast majority of LLVs are parked at Postal Service facilities from 5 p.m. till 8 a.m.
The proposal evaluated in the Postal Service feasibility study would replace the internal combustion engine and drive train with an electric drive and 20 kWh of lithium-ion batteries of unspecified chemistry."
20 kWh is way overkill, as a 10 kWh NEV (there's no mailboxes or mail delivery on interstates) with 200 V 35 amp or similar typical quick charge plug in at lunch hour for 80% recharge would cover more than 96% of all mail delivery driving needs, and certainly cost less than $40,000 each. I know some of the big machines at many post offices already use 220 V, so this is not exactly rocket science. Li-ion'll (choose your favorite flavor) last more than 5 years, too, if the vehicle has modern BMS, PMS and thoughtful algorithms, just with gradually reduced range before top off, so older ones will be eventually be used on the shortest, slowest routes or simply top off a little more during off peak hours during the day. A little common sense goes a long way. Eventually, 220 V charging stations at major housing development post office boxes, with mail vehicles always getting priority for frequent off peak short time top offs (V2G on peak instead if remaining range/timing justifies), as the carrier fills the boxes, will make everything even easier and full day ranges even longer, if needed.
Since there are no mailboxes or mail delivery on interstates, why don't post offices use inexpensive NEVs with a 20 mile AER, opportunistically recharge during off peak (V2G on peak) during the day, and replace all old gasser LLVs right away and continously? They then have no unhelpful price difference between full gassers and BEVs and can make massive relative ROI with fuel and maintenance savings alone and sell the degraded but still useful for storage power pack at the cost of a new lower price one when time for replacement (10 years), with no need to do much V2G, so maximized power pack life. Of course, since such a BEV (they exist today) is cheaper than the current Post Office gasser LLVs, the Post Office would have lower budgets for cost savings to taxpayers, so we can't have that that happen. right?
Comparing my li-ion BEV (high performance highway capable street legal motorcycle) with my full gasser:
My two vehicles (BEV and gasser) cost exactly the same in up front costs, and I've spent an extra $500 on each vehicle in after market convenience parts to make each more comfortably rideable in the real world.
With my BEV:
Same up front price. No price differential.
I save $1,500 per vehicle year on reduced maintenance costs on just the owner's manual recommeded maintenance. Nothing has broken on either vehicle. That means I could purchase a new power pack every two years just on maintenance savings alone, but expect the power pack to last more than twice that before I want an upgrade and sell the still usable one for energy storage applications.
I have 7 days out of service for the full gasser each year and 0 days out of service for the BEV.
I save $750 per year on reduced fueling cost (my comparison gasser is quite fuel efficient, unlike 10 mpg LLVs).
I expect my power pack to last at least 5 years and have already made arrangements to sell it at a profit (that amount depends on usable capacity at that time) over the original purchase price at that time.
I make less than $5 per year on V2G so far, but I do it infrequently, rather than maximize it (I'm not interested in maximizing my power pack capabilities). However, when I do actual V2G in the real world, I make a 85.7% average transaction ROI from the power provider that I'm feeding (buy from wind, sell though solar).
It looks like I use a different business case than the post office, where I try to maximize power pack life for maximum resale value upon eventual replacement, rather than the Post Office intent to have continuous V2G earnings and minimize power pack life through increased cycles. If the two approaches are roughly equivalent, financially, I should be able to make about a $100 total profit on my power pack, about a 0.60% annual ROI, not great but better than some current so called safe investments, in additon to my return on my high ROI but infrequent V2G .
I am fully aware that my results are unique to me and apply to nothing else, though I am reassured with some of the consistency of my real world results with some of the Post Office assumptions.
Some of Post Office's assumptions appear either restrictively path dependent, pessimistic (unsupported or contradicted by actual history and data) or explicitly designed to minimize the life of the power pack rather than optimize ROI, at least to this real world BEV owner with real world experience. Willful obtuseness or uninformed, restrictive or pessimistic assumptions won't help save the Post Offive or any other fleet user any money, that's for sure, if it prevents them from taking the actions (get inexpensive NEVs with just enough daily range when using off peak during the day top offs to the power pack) that will save it money.
It's both sad and amusing to see institutions and businesses running away from and/or being dragged kicking and screaming to $100 bills being handed to them on silver platters.
seekingalpha.com/autho...
Anyway, I think USPS can learn much from Purolator. I realize the E-LLV study would have added facets such as charge times but I think the hybrid can be a useful model. By the way, the Purolator trucks will be getting Li batteries next year from Johnston-Saft. The Azure plant and the new Jonhnston-Saft plants in Michigan are only ten minutes drive away from each other:)
-David in Toronto, Ontario, Canada