Adventures in an all electric vehicle.

[daleyd]

This was an area we looked into when we were looking, from what we read at the time an ice car is more likely to catch fire, statistically, than an ev - and by some margin. But an ev fire could potentially be harder to extinguish.

One test in Korea has found the plastics and other flammable materials in a car contributed a lot more to the heat output of a fire in an ev than the battery pack.

 

[GRW]

This was an area we looked into when we were looking, from what we read at the time an ice car is more likely to catch fire, statistically, than an ev - and by some margin. But an ev fire could potentially be harder to extinguish.

One test in Korea has found the plastics and other flammable materials in a car contributed a lot more to the heat output of a fire in an ev than the battery pack.

ICE car fires, can be extinguished.
EV fires - not so much (as the articles posted & other explain). The plastics might add extra fuel, heat & pollution/noxious smoke.... but that's hardly the point is it!

The "heat output" is pretty irrelevant - it's a red herring. What IS relevant is the cause of the fire (in vehicles of any kind often an electrical short-circuit), and in an EV, the extreme difficulty (if not impossibility) of extinguishing said fire until all the chemical fuel is used up (hours), while even once out, the fires can restart hours, days or even weeks later (something that isnt a factor with ICE vehicles).

 

[daleyd]

ICE car fires, can be extinguished.
EV fires - not so much (as the articles posted & other explain). The plastics might add extra fuel, heat & pollution/noxious smoke.... but that's hardly the point is it!

The "heat output" is pretty irrelevant - it's a red herring. What IS relevant is the cause of the fire (in vehicles of any kind often an electrical short-circuit), and in an EV, the extreme difficulty (if not impossibility) of extinguishing said fire until all the chemical fuel is used up (hours), while even once out, the fires can restart hours, days or even weeks later (something that isnt a factor with ICE vehicles).

It was relevant enough for it to be included in the academic report that went with the study, so while you might dismiss it others haven’t. I’ve found an abstract from the report below.

There’s no doubting an ev fire isn’t as easy to extinguish and poses some different challenges, but there is also the probability of it happening to consider - which appears to some order of magnitude lower than an ice car.

Full-scale fire testing of battery electric vehicles

pure.ulster.ac.uk

Edit - and here is some info on the likelihood of a fire happening.

Fact Check: Do electric cars catch fire more often than combustion engine cars? - EDMO Belux

Copyright RTL / CLT-UFA S.A. Author(s): RTL Lëtzebuerg © RTL Grafik Every now and again, a news story about an...

belux.edmo.eu

 

[premmington]

This was an area we looked into when we were looking, from what we read at the time an ice car is more likely to catch fire, statistically, than an ev - and by some margin. But an ev fire could potentially be harder to extinguish.

One test in Korea has found the plastics and other flammable materials in a car contributed a lot more to the heat output of a fire in an ev than the battery pack.

Wanna EV fire - buses with big KW batteries is where it is at....

 

[Pigeon_Droppings2]

The worry I have is I might have a reasonably severe accident....survive the crash but am trapped in the car...I don't really fancy them opting for a controlled burn in those circumstances!

Other worry was the devaluation if they're deemed generally unsafe from a fire perspective in future as incidents occur over time...a sort of Concorde situation where they realise that as the numbers on the roads grow they've got an issue!

On balance I think I'll look for a PHEV for the moment....although I did really like the Kia Soul first edition if I'm honest.

 

[daleyd]

Wanna EV fire - buses with big KW batteries is where it is at....

Ouch!!

 

[daleyd]

The worry I have is I might have a reasonably severe accident....survive the crash but am trapped in the car...I don't really fancy them opting for a controlled burn in those circumstances!

Other worry was the devaluation if they're deemed generally unsafe from a fire perspective in future as incidents occur over time...a sort of Concorde situation where they realise that as the numbers on the roads grow they've got an issue!

On balance I think I'll look for a PHEV for the moment....although I did really like the Kia Soul first edition if I'm honest.

Statistics tend to show a phev is the worse of all, in terms of probability of a fire happening!

Doesn’t bode too well for me as I have a phev (well, it’s not mine so I’m not too bothered as long as I’m not in it at the time).

 

[GRW]

It was relevant enough for it to be included in the academic report that went with the study, so while you might dismiss it others haven’t. I’ve found an abstract from the report below.

There’s no doubting an ev fire isn’t as easy to extinguish and poses some different challenges, but there is also the probability of it happening to consider - which appears to some order of magnitude lower than an ice car.

Full-scale fire testing of battery electric vehicles

pure.ulster.ac.uk

Edit - and here is some info on the likelihood of a fire happening.

Fact Check: Do electric cars catch fire more often than combustion engine cars? - EDMO Belux

Copyright RTL / CLT-UFA S.A. Author(s): RTL Lëtzebuerg © RTL Grafik Every now and again, a news story about an...

belux.edmo.eu

Think you're missing (don't want to see?) the point.
As I already said, it's not the frequency, but the seriousness of consequences.

The reasons why there are such strict regulation & protocol for gas appliances, isn't due to the frequency. Same can be said for Nuclear Events (see Chernobyl) and several other things.

I have an e-mtb. Except in the sub-zero short periods (to protect the battery) I won't store it indoors... & it'll never be charged in the house overnight - ever.
Normally its in a locked shed away from the house. You know why.
In the (unlikely) event I had an EV, I'd not want it parked in a garage that was attached to or part of the home.... in fact I'd want it a "safe" (whatever that is) distance from my house (or indeed anyone else's)

 

[Roger440]

What you are arguing for is to carry on as we are. I’d be happy with that, but it seems most of the bigwigs/science/“they” aren’t so here we are. You won’t just need to convince our government though…

Quite clearly, im not and i didnt. I think you are reading what you think i wrote, not what i actually wrote.

One more time. Government should set a target/outcome. In this case it could have been zero emmisions. So nothing like leave things as they were.

 

[daleyd]

I’m not missing anything (or not wanting to see it). It’s a concern, yes but is it enough of a concern, for example compared to a car full of petrol, to get worked up about?

You wave away the likelihood of something happening as irrelevant but I bet almost everyday you use the likelihood of something happening in a risk assessment?

See below for another study done. The conclusion is interesting in that it shows a battery fire is usually slower to spread than a petrol fire.

In short, I’m not disagreeing with you but I’m not too concerned either (my cars live outside, which may taint my judgment)

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1744882/FULLTEXT01.pdf

 

[daleyd]

Quite clearly, im not and i didnt. I think you are reading what you think i wrote, not what i actually wrote.

One more time. Government should set a target/outcome. In this case it could have been zero emmisions. So nothing like leave things as they were.

So if they did this, and help me out here - knowing that an ICE would have zero chance of meeting that target - are you saying that car manufacturers would carry on development? Or would they look at alternative technologies to continue selling cars.

Because that’s the bit I’m struggling with. It’s semantics as the outcome is the same.

 

[premmington]

Are they not equipped with a lorry and roll off skip with a concrete base - then full of water - they just hiab the burning EV into the skip?

https://imgur.com/32Pd3Z9

 

[reb78]

Are they not equipped with a lorry and roll off skip with a concrete base - then full of water - they just hiab the burning EV into the skip?

https://imgur.com/32Pd3Z9

Remember the lithium in water trick during chemistry at school.... I am not sure it would end well dunking it in water!

 

[premmington]

Remember the lithium in water trick during chemistry at school.... I am not sure it would end well dunking it in water!

https://cfpa-e.eu/app/uploads/2020/08/container-fire2.jpg

I am inclined to agree with you - but they appear to be geared up for the job with skip lorries

 

[Roger440]

So if they did this, and help me out here - knowing that an ICE would have zero chance of meeting that target - are you saying that car manufacturers would carry on development? Or would they look at alternative technologies to continue selling cars.

Because that’s the bit I’m struggling with. It’s semantics as the outcome is the same.

How can you possibly know what the outcome would have been? How you can you say ICE has zero chance? What if they developed a synthetic fuel. Or some other thing that we have not imagined yet. Why have the EU backtracked on the synthetic fuel possibility and are now allowing the manufacturers time to come up with something.

Its your kind of blinkered thinking thats got us here in the first place.

Its most definitely not semantics. Its a fundamental principle.

 

[reb78]

https://cfpa-e.eu/app/uploads/2020/08/container-fire2.jpg

I am inclined to agree with you - but they appear to be geared up for the job with skip lorries

For some reason the picture/link didnt show that showed they had done it until I quoted your reply!

 

[Pigeon_Droppings2]

The risk picture will only become clearer when we have numbers of EVs similar to ICE I would think....I remember watching a show about Concorde where they originally thought it was one of the safest planes....then they realised that it really wasn't!

There were very low numbers of Concorde flights so the high risk was being masked by low exposure to risk...currently EV numbers are very low...time will tell me thinks either way .

PHEV batteries are a lot smaller so I would have thought their risk might be lower?...at least thats how my head looked at it

 

[Roger440]

Yeah right. How exactly does that reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere? Replacing fossil fuel with biomass derived fuel? Get real.

Back in the stone age everything was hand powered. Then someone harnessed fire and domesticated animals for doing work, then water power. Later the industrial Revolution used external combustion engines to raise steam to drive machinery and for transport. Then along came large electrical generators (driven by various energy sources) which have powered the majority of electrical processes over the last century. There are more electric motors driving machinery than ever before - and certainly more electric motors thar internal combustion engines.

Unfortunately the Industrial revolution has used so much sequestered materials for the greatly increased energy requirements over the last couple of centuries that the human race is rapidly destroying the environment required for humans to comfortably survive. Pray tell us how, and from where, these synthetic fuels will be acquired, in amounts needed to replace fossil fuels. That is without trashing our only planet, for s short-term gain.

I am sorry, but I think you have your head in the sand. You are totally missing the point - THE BIG PICTURE.. The only time there will be enough surplus energy is when atomic fusion becomes our energy generation saviour, or space technology collects energy outside our planet and beams it down. Both a very long way in the future - well, maybe not but I don’t think our planet will have the time to rely on those technologies arriving before fossil fuel burning completely trashes our environment.

Because digging up lithium in quantity is good for the planet. How did i not realise. How silly of me.

Wait until we have groundwater contamination from all the litihum that goes straight to landfill. Another ticking timebomb. Dont seem to learn do we?

Do you really believe that buggering around with car propulsion systems is going to have the slightest effect on how the climate changes. We may well have set a train motion with our behaviours over the last 200 years, but the idea that we will change its trajectory is pie in the sky.

Especially as most of world isnt going to join us.

I suspect that we will spend all our money (that we dont actually have) for no useful change to that trajectory, and when we finally wake up, have none left to adapt to live with the changes that do occur.

 

[premmington]

Yeah right. How exactly does that reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere? Replacing fossil fuel with biomass derived fuel? Get real.

Back in the stone age everything was hand powered. Then someone harnessed fire and domesticated animals for doing work, then water power. Later the industrial Revolution used external combustion engines to raise steam to drive machinery and for transport. Then along came large electrical generators (driven by various energy sources) which have powered the majority of electrical processes over the last century. There are more electric motors driving machinery than ever before - and certainly more electric motors thar internal combustion engines.

Unfortunately the Industrial revolution has used so much sequestered materials for the greatly increased energy requirements over the last couple of centuries that the human race is rapidly destroying the environment required for humans to comfortably survive. Pray tell us how, and from where, these synthetic fuels will be acquired, in amounts needed to replace fossil fuels. That is without trashing our only planet, for s short-term gain.

I am sorry, but I think you have your head in the sand. You are totally missing the point - THE BIG PICTURE.. The only time there will be enough surplus energy is when atomic fusion becomes our energy generation saviour, or space technology collects energy outside our planet and beams it down. Both a very long way in the future - well, maybe not but I don’t think our planet will have the time to rely on those technologies arriving before fossil fuel burning completely trashes our environment.

I am pro nuclear - plus I question if biomass is the right way to go - as with a growing population - food needs to be grown - or the population needs to reduce.

So yes I think you made some good points above

 

[Bornfree]

Just a thought, all the poultry farms I work on have mains failure diesel powered generators. How will we get round power cuts without diesel?