Daily Archives: 11 February 2022

A USPS “Upgrade”

Posted on by
Reply

The USPS is being pressured by President Joe Biden (D) and his EPA to go greenie-er in its vehicle upgrade. So,

The proposed action, which we are evaluating under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), includes an initial order plan for 5,000 electric vehicles, and the flexibility to increase the number of electric vehicles introduced should additional funding become available.

The US Postal Service wants to convert 10% of its 230,000 vehicle fleet to battery-operated “in the coming years,” but says going all electric would cost an additional $3.3 billion beyond its normal budget of $6.3 billion.

What jumped out at me, though, was this comparison between the replacement vehicles for which the USPS has contracted and its present fleet:

In response to a report that the NGDV [Next Generation Delivery Vehicle] only achieves a fuel efficiency of 8.6 mpg in typical use, compared to the Grumman’s 8.2 mpg, the USPS pointed out that the comparison was flawed because it was conducted with the NGDV using its air conditioning system, which the LLV [Long Live Vehicle] does not have. With it turned off, the NGDV achieves 14.7 mpg, according to the USPS.

A 70% increase in mileage with the a/c turned off? That seems to me a poorly designed air conditioning system, even with the windows open for mail delivery every few feet. That just means the compressor is running all the time; it shouldn’t be imposing that big a load on the engine. And: what’s that bump going to do to the battery in the electric NGDV, both its miles between charges and its charge-discharge lifetime?

Toward an Iranian Nuclear Weapons Deal

Posted on by
Reply

There is debate brewing in DC regarding the value of a deal with Iran vs the risks of such a deal, or its lack.

There should be no debate; its outcome is clear.

Some former officials say a restored deal could keep the Iranians a safe distance from having sufficient weapons-grade uranium for a bomb for another eight years or so, but that without a deal they could soon be weeks or even days away.

That, to coin a phrase, is a distinction without a difference. Either way, Iran gets nuclear weapons. The difference between weeks and a few years matters only to those hiding under their beds avoiding uncomfortable facts and to some in the Iranian government who are being—or pretending to be—impatient.

That clarity should drive our response, the responses of the nations of Europe who are second in line for Iran’s weapons, and the responses of Israel, which is first on Iran’s list. So far, Israel is the only one who’s clear on what it must do. We, on the other hand, cannot afford to wait on some sort of consensus with a timid Europe; we need overtly to support Israel in its response—support by being alongside them, not sitting on the sidelines shouting, “Rah, rah.”

If an effective effort to put an end to Iran’s nuclear weapons drive requires cyber and kinetic moves, then so be it.