Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power Transportation

The US Government's Entire 645,000-Vehicle Fleet Will Go All-Electric (msn.com) 216

Posted by EditorDavid from the charging-ahead dept.
Jalopnik reports: The United States government operates a fleet of about 645,000 vehicles, from mail delivery trucks to military vehicles and passenger cars. On Monday, President Joe Biden announced that his administration intends to replace them all with American-made, electric alternatives...

In 2015, the government operated 357,610 gasoline vehicles and 3,896 electric ones; in 2019, those numbers grew to 368,807 and 4,475, respectively. That's excluding the tens of thousands of E-85 ["flex fuel"] and diesel-based vehicles on the road, which, together, comprise nearly a third of the 645,047 total. So, yeah, there's certainly a lot of work to do...
The Washington Post reports: The declaration is a boon to the fledgling electric vehicle industry, which has grown exponentially in the past decade but still represents less than 2 percent of automobiles sold in the United States... "It's important as a symbolic thing," said Timothy Lipman, co-director of the Transportation Sustainability Research Center at the University of California at Berkeley. "But I think it also will have a way of helping to jolt the industry forward at a time when it kind of needed that...."

One of the biggest issues: Just three automakers currently manufacture electric vehicles in the United States, and none of those cars meet Biden's criteria of being produced by union workers from at least 50 percent American-made materials. The closest is the Chevrolet Bolt, assembled at a General Motors plant in Lake Orion, Michigan. But most of that car's parts — including the battery, motor and drive unit — are produced overseas. But that could easily change, said Kristin Dziczek, vice president of industry, labor and economics at the nonprofit Center for Automotive Research.

If Biden succeeds in making every car in the federal fleet electric, he would increase the total number of electric vehicles in the United States by more than 50 percent. "One of the big questions for companies is, 'Is the consumer there?' Well, [the government] is a big consumer," Dziczek said. "Now they know there's some solid demand from the government to support their early launches of new vehicles...." With 640,000 nonelectric vehicles, the federal fleet represents the annual output of about three or four automotive plants, Dziczek said. That's not exactly the million jobs Biden promised in his announcement Monday. But it might be sufficient to convince car manufacturers to change their supply chains or shift their production to U.S. facilities.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The US Government's Entire 645,000-Vehicle Fleet Will Go All-Electric More

The US Government's Entire 645,000-Vehicle Fleet Will Go All-Electric

Comments Filter:

  • US Forest Service (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @11:33AM (#61009064)
    I'm sure the Chevy Bolt will be a fine replacement for Forest Service vehicles.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Strider- ( 39683 )

      Obviously there are going to have to be exceptions. I know of at least 3 active USFS vehicles that haven't been off-grid for a decade or so, and are unlikely to ever be in a location that can be charged up.

      • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by Freischutz ( 4776131 )

        Obviously there are going to have to be exceptions. I know of at least 3 active USFS vehicles that haven't been off-grid for a decade or so, and are unlikely to ever be in a location that can be charged up.

        That won't stop these shills from claiming EVs should be banned in US govt service because they are a bad fit for the Forestry Service.

      • Bring on the electric fire trucks and FEMA response vehicles.

        One problem, Biden never said when it would happen - not a single target, nor a commitment to at least stop buying ICE vehicles after a date certain during his administration. Also, when Govt replaces ICE (internal combustion, not border patrol) vehicles, are they taken off the road and crushed, or are they to be sold yeti private buyers and key on the road for years?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Gravis Zero ( 934156 )

      I'm sure the Chevy Bolt will be a fine replacement for Forest Service vehicles.

      Nice strawman you've setup there. How about the Tesla Cybertruck which was designed explicitly to reduce cost? The consumer version can be outfitted for 465 miles per charge but if you're buying a huge fleet that Tesla would be willing to customize them.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Type44Q ( 1233630 )

        What Tesla Cybertruck?? You're comparing 1-ton diesel pickups - with hundred gallon aux. slip tanks* - to an idea.*Useful for refueling all that stuff in the field that requires energy-dense portability, including the aforementioned fucking vehicle.

        I'm as big a fan of electric propulsion as anybody, and I think petrochemicals should stay in the fucking ground. That said, stupidity and lies aren't going to get us any closer to a suitable replacment.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Gravis Zero ( 934156 )

          What Tesla Cybertruck?? You're comparing 1-ton diesel pickups - with hundred gallon aux. slip tanks* - to an idea.

          Do you believe that Tesla is not going to produce the Cybertruck or are you arguing in bad faith that the vehicles need to be replaced immediately? Your position implies that only immediately available solutions can be used.

          with hundred gallon aux. slip tanks [u]seful for refueling all that stuff in the field that requires energy-dense portability,

          You seem to have a misconception about the purpose of the tanks. The tanks are there not because they need to travel without stopping but rather due to the fact that they do not have immediate accessible to fueling stations. They do however have electricity which means they can rechar

      • There is no consumer version of a tesla truck, they haven't announced a release date yet. Any actual date is at least a year and a half away.

        Meanwhile Rivian and Lordstown motors will have product ready for delivery way before then. Hell the electric F-150 might beat tesla for availability.

        Then there is the electric Hummer - although that seems overpriced - but maybe that will be what the government decides to pay using our money.

        Tesla isn't even a blip on the government radar at this point.

        • There is no consumer version of a tesla truck, they haven't announced a release date yet. Any actual date is at least a year and a half away.

          Well, you are behind the times because production is scheduled to commence later this year.

          Besides, how quickly do you think we're going to change over an entire fleet? It's going to take years to complete the transition.

          • Yea I see that was for the single motor version. Late 2021 for the first version.

            The government usually buys known entities though with huge repair and parts availability.

            As someone said in another post they will target union built vehicles, that means a long established player. Which leaves just F-150 or hummer for trucks unless one of the start ups has a union already. Rivian is tied to Ford so maybe; and Lordstown is retooling an old GM plant (GM probably has a design ready for Chevy/GMC to direct

    • Re:US Forest Service (Score:5, Informative)

      by mrwireless ( 1056688 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @12:02PM (#61009170)

      > I'm sure the Chevy Bolt will be a fine replacement for Forest Service vehicles.

      Mayde not, but the Cybertruck sure will. And it's relatively cheap too, especially if you factor in reduced maintenance cost

      For example, the Beacons National Park seem to be very happy with their new electric cars:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    • Electric vehicles are far more convenient for off grid. You can set up a Solar panel and trickle charge your vehicle. On the other hand every drop of gasoline needs to be brought in. You need to have regular tanker runs to be able to have refueling pumps inside a national park as you are not going to have a refinery or a pipeline or even a fuel depot on sensitive land.
      • Have you done the math on how long it takes to charge an electric vehicle with solar that you can take with you? I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised.

        • If memory serves correctly, 1 mile per hour per three square feet. This range can in the future be increased by more efficient panels or electric engines.

          Imagine a camper caravan of six vehicles where each bring their own panels, then you give power during the day primarily to a single "supplies" unit but also a bit to their own vehicles, and then every three days the caravan moves perhaps 50 miles. Would be an interesting concept for sure.

          • This range can in the future be increased by more efficient panels
            No, you need bigger ones, not more efficient ones. If they were 100% efficient, you had 5 miles per hour charging per 3sq feet ... not very much, or is it?

            or electric engines. Nope. Depending on are of deployment, electric engines are above 99% efficiency ... since a century, or longer.

          • Re: Dont see any refineries in national parks (Score:4, Informative)

            by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @04:37PM (#61010090)

            If memory serves correctly, 1 mile per hour per three square feet. This range can in the future be increased by more efficient panels or electric engines.

            • Energy density from sunlight hitting the Earth's surface is about 750 watts/m^2
            • Capacity factor for PV solar in the continental U.S. is about 0.145. This accounts for night, weather, angle of the sun, dirty panels, downtime due to maintenance, etc. So that 750 watts/m^2 drops to about 109 W/m^2
            • Panel efficiency (for widely available commercial panels) peaks at about 22% at present. So the actual energy harvested by your PV solar panels will be about 24 W/m^2
            • Battery charging efficiency is about 80%-90% as measured by Tesla owners [teslamotorsclub.com]. The higher efficiency is at the higher charge rates (kW) so go with 80% for charging from solar. That means only 19.2 W/m^2 makes it into the battery, the rest becomes waste heat.
            • The most efficient Tesla 3 [fueleconomy.gov] I could find was 24 kWh/100 miles. Or 240 Watt-hours per mile.

            So this Telsa 3 requires (240 Watt-hours/mile) / (19.2 W/m^2) = 12.5 hours*m^2 per mile. That is:

            • With 1 m^2 of panels, it would need an average 12.5 hours of charging to collect enough charge to travel 1 mile.
            • With 3 sqft of panels (0.279 m^2), it would need an average 44.8 hours of charging to travel 1 mile
            • If you say this is happening in the desert southwest (about 0.185 capacity factor) these numbers drop to 9.8 hours for 1 m^2 of panels, 35 hours for 3 sqft of panels.
            • It should be noted that this is average for 24 hours (including night) for the year. If you look at just the 1 hour period around noon at mid-summer, on a sunny day, and the car is angled on a hill so the sun is directly overhead, then the capacity factor drops out. And these numbers for 22% efficient panels become 1.8 hours for 1 m^2 of panels, 6.5 hours for 3 sqft. In the desert southwest, 1.4 hours for 1 m^2, 5.1 hours for 3 sqft. This is best-case though, and at all other times, time of year, car parking angle, and weather conditions, the time will be much longer.

            Electric motor efficiency is already at close to 95% peak, 90% on average, so we're not going to get any significant improvements there. If we doubled panel efficiency to about 45%, then that would cut these times in half.

            So either you're mis-remembering, or the stat you recalled was for something else. Maybe one of the cars used in those solar car races [wikipedia.org].

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Whibla ( 210729 )

              If memory serves correctly, 1 mile per hour per three square feet. This range can in the future be increased by more efficient panels or electric engines.

              • Energy density from sunlight hitting the Earth's surface is about 750 watts/m^2
              • Capacity factor for PV solar in the continental U.S. is about 0.145. This accounts for night, weather, angle of the sun, dirty panels, downtime due to maintenance, etc. So that 750 watts/m^2 drops to about 109 W/m^2

              I'm pretty sure the figure the OP is using does not average the time the vehicle can charge with all the times it cannot.

              That said, we do (well I do anyway) appreciate the effort you go to to calculate and present the current state of play with regards electric vehicles and the issues involved in charging them. Thanks!

        • Have you done the math on how long it takes to charge an electric vehicle with solar that you can take with you? I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised.

          I think Mark Watney [wikipedia.org] did ... and he (eventually) got to where he was going.

        • >Have you done the math on how long it takes to charge an electric vehicle with solar that you can take with you?

          It stinks, if you're talking built-in. I think Musk suggested 10-15 miles worth of charge per day for an integrated solar option on the Cybertruck. Which honestly would still mostly handle my daily driving, but would be a drop in the bucket for a hard-working vehicle.

          However, off-grid does not necessarily mean mobile. If you have a ranger's station somewhere where you would refuel the gas t

  • We've done this before (Score:4, Informative)

    by alternative_right ( 4678499 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @11:36AM (#61009070) Homepage Journal

    The Energy Policy Act of 1992 directed federal agencies to add alternative-fuel vehicles to their fleets in increasing numbers beginning in 1996. Beginning in the early 1990s, the Postal Service experimented with a number of electric vehicles –primarily in California, where state law mandated the production of zero-emission vehiclesin the 1990s. ...Although electric vehicles represented only a small fraction of the Postal Service’s delivery fleet in 2013, together with other types of alternative-fuel vehicles they numbered more than 42,500, comprising about 20 percent of thefleetand representing the largest civilian fleet of alternative fuel-capable vehicles in the world.

    https://about.usps.com/who-we-... [usps.com]

  • We'll see. That would be dumb of taken literally (Score:3, Interesting)

    by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @11:42AM (#61009096) Journal

    The last president said he was going to cut spending by 1% per year. Didn't happen, not even close.

    The president before that promised to create a $1 billion veteran's job corp. Didn't happen, did nothing in that regard
      He said he'd have a tax credit for bringing jobs back to America. Didn't happen, he did nothing on that. His party controlled the House, Senate and White House for two years - total control, and they did nothing.

    Biden says he'll do this. We'll see if he does anything at all. Like Obama's first two years, his party controls the Congress so they could do pretty much whatever they want. We'll see if they actually do anything or if they waste all their time just complaining about some guy who used to be president.

    Of the hundreds of different kinds of vehicles the federal government has, which do thousands of different jobs, some of those are a good fit for electrical vehicles. For example any that move stuff around a particular facility. They don't need long range. Other vehicles, doing other things, are not a good fit for electric. Hopefully if the Biden administration does anything, they use the right tools for the job.

    • Re:We'll see. That would be dumb of taken literall (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Strider- ( 39683 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @11:52AM (#61009128)

      The majority of the fleet is going to be things like postal vehicles, and sedans/passenger vehicles used in urban environments. Those are obvious candidates as they are replaced.

      There will obviously be exceptions, USFS vehicles operating deep in wilderness, same thing for NPS, etc...

      • If the people running the show are at least partially competent then yes. But these sorts of broad mandates often don't include allowances for reasonable exceptions, and it ends up being a clusterfuck. In any case, this "plan" doesn't have much of a chance of really coming to fruition for several years at least, and unless Biden gets a second Term it's not likely that he'll have to deal with any negative ramifications. Which makes it a good Political "win" for him.

        • Did Biden every mention a time scale? Was it going to happen tomorrow? Upon replacement? Or by 2050?

          By about 2025 many if not most new cars used for urban driving will be electric anyway as the falling price of batteries makes them economical, plus a bit of green feeling.

          Last I heard politicians were going to pave the roads with gold by 2050.

    • Re:We'll see if he does anything at all. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RotateLeftByte ( 797477 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @12:27PM (#61009280)

      That should be written as

      We'll see if the GOP in the Senate will allow him to do anything at all.

      From the indications so far, Moscow Mitch will be doing everything he possibly can to obstruct the dems from passing even one bill. Business as Usual really.

      • Moscow Mitch will be doing everything he possibly can to obstruct the dems from passing even one bill.

        Moscow Mitch. I'm stealing this one.

        But you are correct. The GOP is going to do everything in their power to make sure they get pay back for the last 2 years.

        • Moscow Mitch will be doing everything he possibly can to obstruct the dems from passing even one bill.

          Moscow Mitch. I'm stealing this one.

          Just noting that meme started in the summer of 2019, but I'm for keeping it going -- for funzies because Mitch reportedly *hates* it (which obviously means there's some truth to it), and that's good enough for me 'cause he's a dick. :-)

      • > We'll see if the GOP in the Senate will allow him to do anything at all.

        The VP (Kamala Harris) is the tiebreaker. The Dems control the Senate. Also the House, and the presidency. It's their show now.

        Honestly, I find it strange you're already trying to make up excuses for why they won't do anything right - you don't think they'll actually do anything good?

        If not, if you think they are worthless, why root for them? Just because it's fun to root for a politiball team, worthless or not? Kinda lik

        • because of the Fillibuster then for many bills, it will need 60 votes in the Senate. If Moscow Mitch says NO then like dozens of bills, even bi-partisan ones will sit there and fester like they did under Trump.

    • You will know if this is going to happen as soon as the USPS announces the winning bidder for their long term delivery vehicle program. Announcement should be 1st quarter this year (although it has been delayed several times over the course of several years). If Workhorse wins the contract (theirs is the only all electric bid) then just maybe his entire promise will happen within his Presidency.

      • That's interesting to know. I just Googled it and I see it's been delayed a couple times already. I see the three competitors at this point are a conventional engine, a plug-in hybrid, and an all-electric.

        The last set of vehicles has been on the road for about 30 years, so hopefully this decision is made well, based on what best the suits the need, rather than a short-sighted attempt to score political points.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Biden has no real choice but to do something to stimulate the economy out of the pandemic. Same as Obama had very little choice.

      Question is who gets the benefit from it, ordinary folk out the residents of the swamp?

      • I hope I'm wrong, but I'd expect Joe to take care of his friends and neighbors he's been with for the last 48 years.

        He was elected to the Senate in 1973 and has been living in the swamp since then. I'd expect he'll do like Shrek and take care of his swamp home.

        Hopefully I'm wrong.

  • "Who profits?" (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Babel-17 ( 1087541 )
    Also, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Both parties, separately, and together as the establishment, have succeeded in numbing the public to their grifting. "Come on man!" Team Blue "Perfectly legal!" Team Red

  • Charging infrastructure is key (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nkwe ( 604125 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @12:48PM (#61009376)
    Assuming there is some traction on this, the real win would be improved charging infrastructure. If we as a nation want to transition from gas and diesel vehicles to electric, we need to make it easy to do so. Today fueling a gas vehicle is simple - there are gas stations everywhere, with electric - not so much. If the government converts its fleet to electric (or realistically converts *most* of its fleet), not only will it create a market for the vehicles, it will also create a market for the related charging infrastructure. A solid and convenient charging infrastructure is key to electric vehicle adoption.

    The model for electric is different in that you can charge at home overnight and for those users whose daily drive is within the range of the vehicle, it's a no brainier. However for users that can't charge at home because they live in an apartment, condo, or something without charging facilities, or for users that need to drive beyond the range of their vehicles, public charging is a requirement. Today public charging is inconvenient.

    Note that today the charging infrastructure is workable in many (most?) populated areas of the country (referring to the US), but I wouldn't say that it is convenient. Outside of populated areas the charging infrastructure is weak. I own an electric vehicle and if I want to drive somewhere several hundred miles away, I need to plan my trip in advance with respect to charging. I can't just get into the car and go without thinking about it. For broad adoption, beyond early adopters such as myself, charging needs to be convenient.

    My hope is that shifting the governmental fleet to electric has a side effect of improving our charging infrastructure.

    • Infrastructure costs money. We've had politicians announcing a new energy grid for the USA for literally decades. It was talked about in the 1970s, the 1980s, Al Gore campaigned on it in the '90s and 2000 (remember his "smart grid" talking points?). The Bush43 people talked about it post-911 with an added talking point about national security and redundancy in global war on terror... the political class has talked endlessly about it. It's not been stopped by partisan fighting - CA for example is entirely do

  • This is day 34 of wanting one but not having the ability to charge it

  • Buying up that many electric vehicles will , at least in the near term, make it harder/more expensive for average people to get electric vehicles.

    There is only so much manufacturing capacity for some of the components (like batteries) for EVs, and the number of purchases that the govt will have to make to swap out that many vehicles will put a stress on the supply - which will drive up prices (and those prices are not exactly affordable to average people as it is)

  • Empty promise (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kenh ( 9056 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @02:14PM (#61009650) Homepage Journal

    Empty promise with no target date, in other words, meaningless.

    Meaningful legislation would have the government stop buying internal combustion engine vehicles on a date certain, and every decommissioned ICE vehicle crushed, to keep it off the road after it is sold off by the government.

    A fifteen or twenty year slow transition across several administrations with surpluses vehicles sold off and remaining on the road for years is an empty promise by a guy that's only in office for four, or maybe eight years - tops.

    • Federal passenger fleet vehicles are supposed to be replaced at 75k miles. That will be most of them in the next 8 years. Things like off road vehicles and special uses like fire control, dumpers, etc have different acquisition rules and longer lifespans.

  • Real q (Score:3)

    by AlexHilbertRyan ( 7255798 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @05:35PM (#61010218)
    The real q is of course why dont they audit and reduce the need for vehicles in the first place.

    • Prove your implication that they didn't and the implicstion that they need to. Otherwise you waste time.

      • America is full of idiots driving everywhere to buy coffee for example, wasting gas and hours a week.. then again i guess they have no life or friends.

  • While getting an electric motor to produce 1500hp isn't all that big a deal, getting an electric motor plus battery that'll give you 200 km range when installed in an MBT might be a bit trickier...

    And that's disregarding the problem of refueling on a battlefield. Which an Abrams needs to be able to do. Overnight won't cut it....

    Yeah, I know I'm picking an extreme case, but he did say ALL, not "just the easy ones"....

    Hell, arguably "all" could include aircraft, and replacing the F-15 with an electric w

  • Reality check: technology for this change does not exist. Chinese are by far the industry leaders in electrifying public transit and logistics vehicles (BYD et al), and they're nowhere near the tech needed for the kind of replacement this declaration requires for implementation. Everyone else is a generation or two behind, and frankly for a reason. There's no point in getting this sort of thing mass produced when battery technology to make it work at massive scale just isn't there.

    Which is why even in China

  • ...well, not really, since lower energy density is lower energy density. My real point is that "range" is not a coveted property for fighting equipment. Rides tend to be short in the military service, what with clever, ruthless human beings dedicating themselves to opposing your trip.

    This guy embedded with a HumVee crew and noted that a 45-mile trip to Abu Ghraib and back would be a heavy travel day for them. Mostly, they conveyed VIPs back and forth around Baghada:

    https://www.fourwheeler.com/fe... [fourwheeler.com]
    "And

  • The Presidential limo - aka "The Beast" - is shrouded in a lot of "we can't tell you that" mystery as to how it operates, how it is equipped, etc. Will The Beast be replaced with an electric vehicle as well? It seems we have the capability, but I don't know if it's worth the effort. The Beast is already assumed to be really, really heavy due to armor and whatnot; if it starts carrying a huge amount of battery that could make it even more difficult to drive.

  • Yeah, so, um, GM has said that they are going all-electric by 2035. That means that the existing plants and workforce are going to be transitioning. There won't be any new jobs because there isn't going to be an increase in demand for vehicles in general. In fact, there will probably be fewer jobs because building electric motors is a) a lot simpler and b) largely automated.

  • Run the numbers (Score:3)

    by kenh ( 9056 ) on Saturday January 30, 2021 @11:09PM (#61011070) Homepage Journal

    Biden said the following, in the linked-to article in the summary:

    âoeThe federal government also owns an enormous fleet of vehicles, which weâ(TM)re going to replace with clean electric vehicles made right here in America, by American workers, creating a million auto worker jobs in clean energy and vehicles that are net-zero emissions.â

    A million jobs to replace 650K ICE gov't vehicles? What the hell? Each and Every car will support 1.3 full-time jobs? You know, when Trump said shit like this, he got called out on it - why does every excuse Biden's fantastical claims?

Slashdot Top Deals

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Close