Can electric vehicles deliver?
No AC or heat?
FedEx puts the battery to the test
FedEx is testing 4 electric delivery vehicles in a 12 month Los Angeles field test to determine the potential of electric delivery vans. With 100 miles of range, the new EVs could theoretically provide enough range to enable the average delivery person to complete an entire shift on one charge.
Still, the real question is, can such electric vehicles deliver when it comes to cost-effectiveness?
According to FedEx the electric vans cost 50 percent more than current delivery vehicles, although scale should help reduce costs. Likewise, in order to increase range, the vans do not offer either air conditioning or heating, which could prove a big problem in Los Angeles summers. Nonetheless, FedEx is hoping to come up with alternative solutions for heating and AC.
Equally important, understanding real world range capabilities also seems critical. In recent tests with iMiEVs, for example, 100 mile range often translates into 50 or 60 miles of real world range. While keeping the AC system separate from the EV powertrain in these delivery vehicles should help maintain range, real world range is certain to drop.
Nevertheless, delivery vehicles seem a perfect candidate for EV technologies. Perhaps this could be the long term solution for getting USPS losses under control?
I also find it very troubling, Tom, very troubling.
Even if peak oil were 30 years away, the last 30 years of foreign oil dependence indicate that the next 30 years will be far more volatile and dangerous. Not long ago, GM said nobody could have predicted the gas bubble of 2008. So, automakers can now reliably predict the future of energy prices from here on out? Heck no.
In another 5 or 10 years we’ll hear the same argument. Nobody could have predicted it. We seem doomed to repeat our mistakes.
Without question there are no easy or quick solutions to this problem. However, like any dependency, the first step is accepting full responsibility for the fact that there is a real problem and without help, greater problems are inevitable. Yet, our government and our people act more like the drunk whom knows he has a problem, but keeps having that one last drink until it is simply too late and you no longer have a choice.
Inevitable, America seems hell bent upon doing things the hard way, and it’s really going to hurt when we longer have a choice.
Thank you for the excellent analysis.
I do however find your statement “we’ll be heavily dependent upon foreign oil probably until 2050 based upon our current trajectory” very troubling. With peak oil projected to be somewhere in the 2015-2020 range – this does not paint a very pretty picture. We seem to be headed for some very troubling times.
Tom G.
Hey Tom-
I don’t think we’re so focused on parallel hybrids, it’s just that right now it’s the more cost-effective hybrid technology because it can better utilize less batteries, providing the greatest amount of fuel economy improvement for the least amount of money. Likewise, you can check into the research on plug-in vehicles, and you’ll find that overwhelmingly the evidence shows that based on the technological limitations of today’s batteries – which ultimately scales down to commodity costs – a small battery, parallel plug-in hybrid offers the most cost-effective and viable option for a greater percent of consumers in terms of plug-in vehicles.
that’s not because a parallel hybrid is most efficient. in theory, the parallel option is most inefficient because of 2 drive trains, but the costs of replacing the materials with batteries incurs even higher costs, at least for now, and quite possibly for the next few decades. unless of course, consumers completely change their expectations on transportation.
likewise, i’ve had discussions with one of the large trash disposal companies and they’ve told me that without doubt, a parallel configuration is the most cost-effective configuration as well. instead of plug-in technology at all, they see a parallel hybrid that can run on natural gas as the greenest, most cost-effective path forward. but that’s for very big and heavy vehicles.
personally, i’m not a big fan of the series hybrid, unless biofuels become significantly more advanced. instead, eventually new battery technologies, such as lithium-air, some form of dynamic charging, battery swapping, or hydrogen will make parallel hybrid technology – and series hybrid technology – unnecessary, except possibly the prior scenario. of course, if hydrogen moves forward, it seems fuel cell hybrids built on a parallel configuration might be around for a very long time.
even GM has said that the series drive train in the volt is really only suited for vehicles the size of the volt. smaller or bigger than volt GM vehicles will require a different plug-in drive train, such as GM’s dual mode parallel plug-in hybrid powertrain.
most important, in terms of battery technology, according to research from Argonne, MIT et al, next gen batteries are probably a decade, possibly even two decades, away from ANY automotive implementation. even then it will take decades to fully implement and scale. so, the auto industry is going to be stuck with the technological limitations of lithium batteries – regardless of chemistry – for decades. thus, in my opinion, we should be using those battery technologies as efficiently as possible to achieve the most efficient bang for the buck.
but that is not happening. instead, marketing, not technological realism with a focus on the greatest results possible, is the focus. which is why we’ll be heavily dependent upon foreign oil probably until 2050 based upon our current trajectory.
thus, in the interim, i prefer parallel hybrids. based on everything i’ve seen, it’s simply the most logical path forward. if toyota, for example, can reduce costs enough to make hybrids 30 percent of their fleet by 2020, then they are forecasting pretty big drops in costs. If 30 percent of the fleet were hybrid by 2020, that would mean that that 30 percent could be converted into plug-in hybrid as battery technologies mature. that would seriously help alleviate the legacy effect that gas-guzzlers will have open US energy consumption for decades AFTER the perfect clean and green car is developed.
to me 10 percent EV and 30 percent parallel hybrid by 2020 is far better than just 10 percent EV.
to dahcredyns:
I appreciate and value your feedback since you see hundreds of post and do significant research into the technology of hybrid vehicles. However, there is one thing I have never understood and that is why we seem to be so focused on parallel hybrid vehicles. If I understand the technology correctly it consists of an internal combustion engine [ICE] driving both the vehicle through gears and a motor and generator which also charges a battery.
My question is this – why are we so focused on parallel technology instead of series hybrid technology. It seems to me series technology has the potential to be more efficient.
John-
I agree, and I’m sure there will be other options as well. For now, hammering down the basic cost-effectiveness is the right pursuit. Instead of pure EVs, perhaps Fed Ex will realize a series or parallel hybrid configuration leads to the most fuel savings for the buck. Between FedEx’s hybrids and EVs, they should be able to come up with some great real world analysis. Then they can worry about comfort systems.
Inevitably, battery technology in one form or another seems a no-brainer for this kind of vehicle and business. Glad to see FedEx taking it seriously. Then again, considering that fuel is the key to this business, not taking these technologies seriously would be bad business.
Tom,
I don’t think they have AC here as well, but I’m pretty sure many postal vehicles do as I’ve caught them lunching it with the car one – for the AC I assume, but that’s only an assumption. Likewise, I would assume in the winter in the Midwest and Northeast, heating would be a requirement. So, would such vehicles only work in certain climates or for only part of the year?
Likewise, there are similarly sized delivery vehicles that need refrigeration or other requirements. Can such electric delivery vehicles work for such purposes?
Ultimately, making this technology cost-effective would be helped by scale. In order to achieve scale, AC and heating capabilities can help.
But, we have become a bunch of spoiled brats.
A 10 HP ICE can do a lot as far as range extension, A/C, and reduced battery discharge.
I really got a kick out of this statement: “Likewise, in order to increase range, the vans do not offer either air conditioning or heating, which could prove a big problem in Los Angeles summers.”
As most of you know I live in Arizona where average daytime temperatures hit 110-115 degrees almost every day in Jul, Aug & Sept. By the way it’s only 96 today.
The part I found funny is that NONE of our FedEx or UPS truck have AC. They do however have a dash mounted 6″ fan, ha ha. Not only that but we build houses, go shopping, kids go to the park and we work in our yards and jog in the early mornings when it’s 105 degrees.
I also lived in California for 30 years and seem to remember that a lot of homes don’t even have AC. Have we become a bunch of spoiled brats or what? LOL