He should know a thing or two about propulsion systems for trucks and other response vehicles. One thing he did not bring up was that as the demand for liquid fuels decreases, the ability to go anywhere and get fuel might also become more of a challenge and something to be planned for to be more self-sufficient in your fueling options.
Check out what Allen has to say below:
“What Will Happen When Response Vehicles Are Electric?
“Eric- I read your piece in GT today.
“You are asking objective questions and raising some interesting points about some disaster situations.
“I don’t believe government should for a minute suggest that today’s emergency response vehicles and the fuels that power them are going to be replaced with electric… just because.
“Mainstream consumer policies dictating electric passenger vehicles are one thing, but it is the wrong kind of government thinking that every other category of vehicles, like disaster response and fire and rescue should be something other than today’s gas and diesel. The National Academies of Science just issued a sizable report on the topic of fuels for defending our nation. Their conclusion is that ‘U.S. Army Should Continue to Use Hydrocarbon Fuel as Primary Source of Energy on the Battlefield, Says New Report.’
“What sense would it make to have disaster response vehicles be all electric when the grid is almost always knocked out for a period of time (as you point out) – days or weeks? It would be like sending a fire truck without a hose or water to a burning building. If an EV could not deliver the same or better functionality on the core requirements of emergency response – the response time took longer, was less effective, consequences were greater loss of life and/.or property damage- then why would we even consider it?. If EVs are someday able to be superior to a diesel pumper truck or 4x4 wildfire fighting truck, and operate 8 hours continuously far, far away from any charging source then…. great.
“Yes climate change is a serious problem for all of us. But so are auto accidents, house fires, weather related disasters and personal and public safety. Fire and rescue vehicles are infinitesimally small in number compared to commercial heavy duty trucks so I can imagine that they are but a small fractional percentage contributor to GHG emissions inventory in the US if you could even register it.
“I know I would want whatever it took to save our lives and property, whatever was most reliable, capable and proven to get the job done under any conceivable conditions. IMHO If a fire breaks out, and smoke and hazardous chemicals are spilling out into the street, and people are trapped inside, do we care that the fire response vehicle has zero emissions? I doubt it. But if the fire and rescue service responding vehicle could not get the job done, we would care. For example battery, state of charge or range limitations an EV fire truck could not get to the scene and carry and pump 2000 gallons of water to knock a fire down initially until a hose line could be established. Or a tanker truck could arrive. Is that a circumstance to want to even consider?
“In all seriousness, governments should not dictate fuel types – but establish performance standards, need and capability for fleets to serve the public in the most cost effective way possible. And in any objective fact based comparison, I am betting that diesel will win for emergency response and disaster recovery hands down for a good long time due to its power density, energy efficiency, durability, reliability, driving and working range, vast nationwide refueling and service and parts networks… AND its now achieving near zero emissions and is capable of using 100 percent renewable biobased diesel fuels.
“Thanks for listening!”
[Speaking as a diesel guy, he made his case!]
