Filed under: Hybrids/Alternative
The brown company goes green - UPS orders up hybrid delivery trucks
The United Parcel Service has announced that it will be ordering 50 hybrid delivery vehicles from International in 2006, each costing approximately twice as much as a normal delivery vehicle. The vehicles will provide an estimated combined fuel savings of 44,000 gallons per year. We're not exactly talking about saving the world, but give UPS credit for doing the right thing, as it's difficult to imagine a better application for hybrid technology. Of note is that these hybrids will employ lithium-ion batteries.
More significant, simply due to the volume of vehicles, is the company's plan to purchase 4,100 high-efficiency trucks, which will save 1.5M gallons annually by providing a 15% decrease in fuel consumption.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Mal Fuller 6:27PM (2/20/2006)
Imagine, even "old also ran" International Harvester will be able to supply hybrids sooner than GM! The General has turned into the Rip Van Winkle of the US manufacturers, a sorry status for what was once an industry leader!
Reply
sophie moreaut 6:40PM (2/20/2006)
http://sophies.blogdreams.hu
Reply
max 6:45PM (2/20/2006)
"1. Imagine, even "old also ran" International Harvester will be able to supply hybrids sooner than GM! The General has turned into the Rip Van Winkle of the US manufacturers, a sorry status for what was once an industry leader!
Posted at 6:27PM on Feb 20th 2006 by Mal Fuller 0 stars"
Sorry to burst your bubble, but GM has had hybrid buses out for a few years!
The Sierra and the Silverado are also available in Hybrids.
Reply
Lithous 7:02PM (2/20/2006)
"Imagine, even "old also ran" International Harvester will be able to supply hybrids sooner than GM!"
I'm not convinced that is a true statement...
From the article:
"United Parcel Service Inc. said Friday it has ordered 50 hybrid electric delivery vehicles and acquire 4,100 low-emission vehicles during 2006 as part of a strategy to cut costs."
It looks like UPS will/has order hybrids in 2006 (when delivered it does not say) and take delivery of low-emissions vehicles in 2006. That is how I read it.
With that said, read the second paragraph of: http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2004/05/27/197297.html
Not to mention, if UPS is going to pay twice the price as a "normal" model for them then I bet anybody could produce that by (again, I don't think a delivery date was given) whenever. International is just THEIR truck supplier so they are the ones tasked to do it.
I wonder if by the time all of these are delivered to UPS that GM will have a hydrogen fuel bus out in the field somewhere.
Reply
Lithous 7:06PM (2/20/2006)
Looks like old Mal Fuller is attempting some Mal Practice.
Reply
Takeo 8:09PM (2/20/2006)
Wow I agree with Lithous on something. I don't think Mel's statement was fair either. GM's got some decent things going on in the Hybrid department for Industrial purposes.
That being said Hybridizing delivery vans that spend most of their time stopping and starting makes a tremendous amount of sense. After all who wants to be burning fuel when the vehicle is just sitting there? Commercial vehicles also have a tendancy to be less sensitive to weight or their mode of operation than passenger cars, they require less refinement, but more ruggedness.
I hope this means there will be more competition between the various fuel-saving technologies.
Reply
rw 8:16PM (2/20/2006)
I guess Gm's diesel electric bus and locomotives don't count.
Reply
Tag1 8:52PM (2/20/2006)
Paying twice as much per vehicle to save less than 1,000 gallons a year? I hope they get a lot of free advertising out of this, because on the face of it the economics suck.
Reply
Lithous 9:13PM (2/20/2006)
"Wow I agree with Lithous on something."
Takeo, even a broken clock is right twice a day ;)
I looked it up and the first installment (didn't say how many) of the UPS hybrids is to be delivered in June of 2006 for Dallas. GM has still already had hybrid buses though before International.
The thing I find interesting is that the batteries are to be Lithium Ion which is one reason for the high cost.
I did think about the economics of it (twice the price) not being smart for a corporation but their brownie points from some customers for thier "greeness" and the emissions savings are the main point of the excersize, I suppose.
Maybe in a few years they'll ask, what can green do for you? I will bet the whole color thing with brown and green will come into play in future commericials.
Reply
max 9:13PM (2/20/2006)
"7. Paying twice as much per vehicle to save less than 1,000 gallons a year? I hope they get a lot of free advertising out of this, because on the face of it the economics suck."
What's the service life of one of these trucks-they look like they've had some in use since in the 30's. Isn't their the chance that the savings will outweigh the investments after 10 years or so?!?
Reply
bernie 9:45PM (2/20/2006)
The 44,000 gallons is a start. What would save some serious fuel annually would be to formulate real intermodal transportation systems: Trains do the long hauling, trucks do the intermediate routes, delivery vans take it to the door.
Why, in 2006, we still have 18-wheelers pulling 2700 mile cross country trips every day with a mere 70,000 lbs or less on board is insane and wasteful. But then trucking lobby is probably working overtime in Washington.
With any semblance of intermodal transport, this nation could save hundreds of thousands of gallons a DAY. But you won't hear anything about it from Bush.
Reply
Ted 10:14PM (2/20/2006)
#10
The reason is Unions. At one time everything did work that way, but Unions made it more and more difficult to do this. Then with the advent of the Interstate system, companies were able to move their good from point to point without having to deal with that crap.
Reply
Lithous 10:41PM (2/20/2006)
Are you saying that unions can cause that much damage that the whole way we deliver goods is changed and cost savings are lost because of it?
I don't believe it. It is just inept management not the unions. Wait, that is the response to GM's problems. Sorry, I do realize unions are that powerful but for a second there I just lost track of reality and likened GM's problems with the rest of the countries history of union problems and thought I had a sensible response (based on those given about the big 2's situation).
Sorry, won't happen again. Let me get it straight so I won't make a mistake. Unions forced the whole operating procedure of the country to change and cost extra money in doing it for shipping but they have little to no importance in why GM and Ford have problems in the auto industry (not that I saw you say that but it is usually the party line here on autoblog so I'm trying to keep with that mentality in trying to put together my logic). OK, I think I got it.
Reply
Andrew 12:10AM (2/21/2006)
In general I don't think hydrids pay. Example in Europe gas has been ~4-6$ per gallon for a long time, how many hybrids do they have there?
In this case let's say the van costs 2X or 40k instead of 20k. If you save 1,000 gallons per year this is 2,500$, or 8 year payback. That is marginal.
UPS is in business to make money. Maybe they get some kind of tax breaks, maybe the brakes last longer?
Reply
Dan 12:59AM (2/21/2006)
This is a big picture question.
For starters, short term economics rarely work when new technologies are introduced. Every calculation here is based on the current street price of a gallon of gasoline vs the street price of the hybrid system, looking for the payoff period. Only through mass adaptation/production can prices of the systems come down so everyone can save.
Second, gasoline costs much more than the price you pay at the pump. Every time we (taxpayers) fund another off shore economic or military operation that otherwise wouldn't get the time day from us because they are strategically (oil) important, this adds to our price - just no in a way that shows up in energy savings formulas.
UPS is thinking about more than this years annual report.
Reply
ssgtakeo 1:46AM (2/21/2006)
I am NOT a broken clock Lithous, do not insult me that way.
In any case a lot of this "greenie" stuff for me isn't as much about pure economics as it is about a mix of environmental, economic and political issues.
Environmental: Ever think how much carbon is in 10K gallons of diesel fuel? Sulfur too.
Economic: I'd rather put more on capital expenditures than consumables yes?
Politcal Issues: Who wants to be paying the Saudi Kingdom any more money?
Reply
Jay 2:29AM (2/21/2006)
>>Politcal Issues: Who wants to be paying the Saudi
>>Kingdom any more money?
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/060219/cx_dilbert_umedia/20061902;_ylt=At5FJKmDpei6V3LJT4UT3j8A_b4F;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Reply
Jim 3:13AM (2/21/2006)
I'm actually more interested in the hydraulic hybrids that UPS and the EPA are testing. Personally I think this system makes more sense in some applications than the battery system, without the worry of what to do with all the batteries when they die off. I'm a bit surprised that UPS is trying both hybrid systems. Tip of the hat to UPS for being willing to try lots of new things, maybe we'll all benefit down the road from their testing.
Reply
Tag1 7:03AM (2/21/2006)
#10 UPS has averaged a return on equity in excess of 20% annually. Assuming this new truck saves the company $2000/year, the company cannot pay more than a $10,000 premium for a hybrid truck without screwing the shareholders.
The economics may work for UPS if the State or Feds kick in a couple incentives, but then the taxpayers are getting screwed.
Reply
Phil L. 8:56AM (2/21/2006)
rw -
> I guess Gm's... locomotives don't count.
Actually, a diesel-electric locomotive isn't a hybrid in the current, automotive sense of the word: The electric generator/motor setup in a typical rail locomotive simply acts as a transmission, not as an alternate mode of operation. The batteries on a locomotive are only there to start the diesel engine and help run other electrical systems (just like a traditional automobile); they aren't used to power the electrical driving motors.
Why is this the case? The energy required to drive a locomotive's driving wheels, even for a short time, is far beyond what current battery technology can offer, given typical rail environment constraints. Additionally, most rail (read: freight) tends toward steady-state operation; automotive hybrids thrive in stop/start environments where otherwise-wasted power can be reclaimed (which is also why hybrids generally do better in city driving than on the highway).
Reply