[gonzo]

Originally Posted by crAbb

Hoping someone catches the little smeg stains and shoves one of those up their keister. Vandals are like bottom of the barrel.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by gblansten

The excitement for me is watching this tech evolve and get even better. Lots of challenges remaining but they can be overcome. The balancing act is to allow for some wiggle room on the timing.

I think the other factor other than timing, is cost. By timing it should mean patience. Cost means equivalent to or better than ICEV. There are limits to technology development. Physics and chemistry definitely constrain battery architecture and performance. Electric motor development is at a very high level at this point since motors have been in existence as long as the internal combustion engine. The current state of EV art shows a 300-mile range requires around a 90kWh battery. That can improve some but to double range to 600 miles, which it is believed is necessary to gain larger market share given the rate of range recovery on the public network of some 20 minutes or so, is a tall order. What will be that cost both in battery and infrastructure? Does the current charging infrastructure, which seems geared toward 400V and 800V architecture, need recapitalization to support a different charging architecture?

The current charging infrastructure is struggling to serve current EV clients. Funding from outside normal commerical market forces is necessary just for the network to tread water. Tolerance for additional outside funding for another round of public capitalization may not be tolerable. That folds back to timing and patience.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by DrVenture

Did they? Or did they simply complain while forward thinkers created and invented?

I spent 40 years working for a world-renowned R&D operation that changed the world in many ways - the transistor, laser technology, fiber optics, wireless communications. In my experience, the curmudgeons were never the guys taking the chances and moving things along. They were the guys grumbling about change and following in others footsteps. Often impeding progress. It never mattered if they were young or old.

Back on topic though. EVs will evolve to the point where large numbers of people will adopt them because they make sense for their circumstances. I see that as a good thing. OPEC limits supplies and oil companies refuse to add to production or refineries, also limiting supplies. They know that if they spend money to bring down costs it will hurt profitability. I view EVs as an end run around that. A form of competition that will benefit both ICE and EV owners.

Yeah, me too, my entire 35-year career has been injecting new technology into society. But it needs throttling and management as well, or direction gets lost and dollars wasted.

We need to accept that young impressionable people who have difficulty with gender are easily led down a path not supported by scientific realism. Such people don't understand the geological and fossil record and what it tells them. They easily are duped into believing the sky is falling and that hope and change are the only solution that will take them back in time when the climate will be static for the future. Their narrow belief system makes their safe space all nice and fluffy, with all the colors of the rainbow.

[DrVenture]

Lithium Ion is probably not the future of battery tech. Big money is chasing other technologies.

I am reminded of the world believing that blue LEDs were a pipe dream, until a fellow thought outside the box and that led to a massive explosion of innovation.

[DrVenture]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Yeah, me too, my entire 35-year career has been injecting new technology into society. But it needs throttling and management as well, or direction gets lost and dollars wasted.

Yes, the bean counters balance the blue-sky boys. Both have their purpose. Which is why some research is better accomplished outside a corporate environment. And sometimes requires subsidization to move things along.

Twenty years ago, the notion of lithium ion powering a full-sized vehicle seemed ridiculous. Absolutely no one would have predicted the Tesla Plaid.

I don't know which battery tech is going to be the next big thing, or when. But, I find graphene hybrids interesting https://www.azonano.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=6233

And Samsung's solid state battery has big potential - https://www.topspeed.com/samsung-600...state-battery/

Near-term challenges persist, and I believe will be overcome. This is not a single solution issue. Maybe Lithium Ion persists for applications where it is the best choice. ICE persists for other situations. And new battery tech evolves to fill another niche. Most of the criticism that I have heard is an attempt to characterize this as a one-size-fits-all narrative. The guy who only drives around town and never drives cross country doesn't care about long range or charging infrastructure. Personally, I don't make my decisions based on outliers that do not apply to me.

Neither of my primary vehicles make sense for most people. I daily drove a 600+ HP RWD vehicle for 16 years on drag radials. We could list all the reasons it is a flawed idea, but it is the most reliable vehicle I have ever owned and never posed me any issues. Well, except for permagrin.

[Ugly Kar]

Originally Posted by dfox

No, we're not there. We're at a point where EV is great for like 97% of the driving that everyone in this country does. Everything else, you need to also own an ICE vehicle, or rent one.

It's not this whole "all or nothing" mentality that EV needs to be completely equal to ICE... it's different and that's okay. Many people make them work without any negative impacts on their life and many positives. Others can't, and that's fine. Go buy an ICE. or plug-in hybrid. I own EV and ICE and I don't see that ever changing.


On a different note:
I just recently read about a huge parking garage fire that happened last year! 1,400 cars destroyed, the parking garage had to be demolished!
Oh it was a diesel car that started it.

The fear mongering on here is out of control.

Once again, where is the Cu going to come from? There isn't enough Cu for 50% of car owners to have an EV, much less 97%.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0515164309.htm

It must be nice to be an elitist and drive an EV while the lower income citizens get to pay for it. And I wonder how they feel about destroying the landscape of 3rd world countries while poisoning their citizens with Cu, Li and other very hazardous metals.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326516

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...opper-in-water

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by DrVenture

Lithium Ion is probably not the future of battery tech. Big money is chasing other technologies.

I am reminded of the world believing that blue LEDs were a pipe dream, until a fellow thought outside the box and that led to a massive explosion of innovation.

Great video. Watched it. Very interesting.

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by Ugly Kar

Once again, where is the Cu going to come from? There isn't enough Cu for 50% of car owners to have an EV, much less 97%.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0515164309.htm

It must be nice to be an elitist and drive an EV while the lower income citizens get to pay for it. And I wonder how they feel about destroying the landscape of 3rd world countries while poisoning their citizens with Cu, Li and other very hazardous metals.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326516

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...opper-in-water

Thomas Malthus did a very poor job of extrapolation. Innovation changes trends.

[dfox]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I like how other people get to decide how 97% of the market should just accept that EV are "right for them" but they just yet don't know it. They are like drug pushers. 🤣🤣🤣

Maybe try reading my entire post next time :

Many people make them work without any negative impacts on their life and many positives. Others can't, and that's fine.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

You are confusingly and errantly equalizing the causalities. Diesel fuel does not spontaneously combust. Li-Ion batteries do spontaneously combust because EV batteries have the oxidizer within the chemical make up of the battery. If the vehicle was indeed a diesel, it caught fire due to an electrical system fault, not because the diesel fuel just spontaneously caught on fire.

The point is that everything catches fire some times and causes damage. Per vehicle on the road, ICE still catch on fire more often than EV. That's a fact. Per 100,000 vehicles sold, EV's were 61 times LESS LIKELY to catch fire. That means the ICE parked next to you in the parking garage is 61 times more likely to burn the garage to the ground than the EV on the other side.

[dfox]

Originally Posted by Ugly Kar

Once again, where is the Cu going to come from? There isn't enough Cu for 50% of car owners to have an EV, much less 97%.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0515164309.htm

It must be nice to be an elitist and drive an EV while the lower income citizens get to pay for it. And I wonder how they feel about destroying the landscape of 3rd world countries while poisoning their citizens with Cu, Li and other very hazardous metals.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326516

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...opper-in-water

There have never been environmental problems with crude oil. It's never spilled. Mining it doesn't destroy the landscape. Refining it doesn't release toxic chemicals into the air. Fracking doesn't destroy local water stores. etc.

[dfox]

Originally Posted by Ugly Kar

Once again, where is the Cu going to come from? There isn't enough Cu for 50% of car owners to have an EV, much less 97%.

Once again...

My posts suggest that we need a mix of EV, ICE, and hybrids... Honestly I think a lot more plug-in hybrids would be the best solution, it would reduce battery size, allowing us to stretch the currently available materials, and people could avoid their fears that charging is impossible.

[DrVenture]

Originally Posted by Ugly Kar

Once again, where is the Cu going to come from? There isn't enough Cu for 50% of car owners to have an EV, much less 97%.

...

There was a strong belief two decades ago that we might run out of oil - "peak oil", they called it. It was based on a limited understanding of the situation at that time. And a lot of erroneous thinking. The sole focus on LI technology may be similar in nature.

They have already found ways to replace certain element in today's batteries to avoid material constraints. Tesla uses two different battery chemistries for their vehicles, dependent on cost and function. What if only 25% of new EVs retain LI, and 25% use solid state, and 25% use Graphene, and 25% use Sodium-ion, which can utilize aluminum in lieu of copper? And we only see an 50% EV adoption rate in a decade from now?

I restate that this is not a "one solution" situation. It doesn't have to be.

But, I will be happy to donate my jar of pennies, if it would help!

[dfox]

Originally Posted by DrVenture

I don't think you read what he posted accurately. He stated that they might work for 97%, not that we will see a 97% adoption rate with current battery technology. And I took the 97% number as spitballing, to illustrate a point. Not some literal promise or forecast.

Agreed. The percentage came from some old study that showed that 97% of the trips that the average consumer takes every year are below 300 miles - IE the range of most EV's out there right now. I can't seem to find the study any more. The other 3% are where an ICE or Hybrid would be necessary if you want to avoid trying to use public charging (I refuse to use public charging with my EV). So my wife and I split two cars, one is EV, one is ICE. Neither of the cars belong to either of us, instead, we just chose the car based on who is going where, putting the most miles we can on the EV without getting out of its range. I also have a convertible that only I drive as a toy in the summer, it replaced a motorcycle, but it remains parked in the garage 8 months of the year.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by crAbb

It's all mincing to me

[crAbb]

Originally Posted by dfox

Maybe try reading my entire post next time :

Many people make them work without any negative impacts on their life and many positives. Others can't, and that's fine.


The point is that everything catches fire some times and causes damage. Per vehicle on the road, ICE still catch on fire more often than EV. That's a fact. Per 100,000 vehicles sold, EV's were 61 times LESS LIKELY to catch fire. That means the ICE parked next to you in the parking garage is 61 times more likely to burn the garage to the ground than the EV on the other side.

Is this true? Are you saying that off 100k ICE and EV cars sold (say) from 1st January 2022 to the end of that year, less EVs caught fire?

[dfox]

Originally Posted by crAbb

Is this true? Are you saying that off 100k ICE and EV cars sold (say) from 1st January 2022 to the end of that year, less EVs caught fire?

Edmondson said various surveys showed EVs represented far less of the reported fires than might be expected given their market share. Estimates by the Phosphorous, Inorganic & Nitrogen Flame Retardants Association reported 55 fires per billion miles travelled in ICE vehicles and five fires per billion for EVs. A report from AutoinsuranceEX said EVs exhibited 61 times fewer fires per 100,000 sales than ICE vehicles.

Tesla has reported that between 2012 and 2021 there was approximately one Tesla vehicle fire for every 210 million miles travelled. This includes fires that did not originate in the vehicle, like arson, structure fires etc. According to the National Fire Protection Association, the national average in the U.S. was one fire per 19 million miles travelled. This suggests Tesla’s EVs are 11 times less likely to catch fire than the average car

Just going off what data is available.

There's an age discrepancy here that cannot be predicted. Obviously as ICE cars get older they're more likely to catch fire as things like hoses age, crack, and leak combustible fuel. Are EV's in the same boat? And assuming they are, is it at the same rate as ICE cars? We don't know. Very few Nissan Leafs have caught fire and those are getting pretty old and aren't cooled like more modern EV's. They just lose capacity and eventually become useless because the battery didn't have as much self-protecting safeguards like the newer EV's do.

Current major fire issues appear to be tied to cheap quality batteries that are not available in the US market... And when issues do creep up, manufacturers are very fast to issue recalls and correct the issues. I personally avoided some of the earlier EV's that were having fire issues like the Bolt and Kona... I bought a Leaf, and then recently traded that in for an Ioniq 5. I also don't park in my garage (only my convertible gets parked in the garage, and only during the rainy months when it's not being used at all).

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by dfox

Just going off what data is available.

There's an age discrepancy here that cannot be predicted. Obviously as ICE cars get older they're more likely to catch fire as things like hoses age, crack, and leak combustible fuel. Are EV's in the same boat? And assuming they are, is it at the same rate as ICE cars? We don't know. Very few Nissan Leafs have caught fire and those are getting pretty old and aren't cooled like more modern EV's. They just lose capacity and eventually become useless because the battery didn't have as much self-protecting safeguards like the newer EV's do.

Current major fire issues appear to be tied to cheap quality batteries that are not available in the US market... And when issues do creep up, manufacturers are very fast to issue recalls and correct the issues. I personally avoided some of the earlier EV's that were having fire issues like the Bolt and Kona... I bought a Leaf, and then recently traded that in for an Ioniq 5. I also don't park in my garage (only my convertible gets parked in the garage, and only during the rainy months when it's not being used at all).

You make the point I made months ago in this thread, ICEV catch fire because of severe accidents, or poor maintenance and age, which are repairable and a discipline issue rather than a hardware issue. EV fires are a hardware issue and the ferocity is 10X a gasoline or diesel fuel fire. That's why EV fires are an issue. Perhaps EV fires are less in per vehicle unit basis, but that's not the question.

[Dégoûté]

** the sound of goalposts moving **

[NSX2M4]

This whole thread should just be renamed as, "GASLIGHTING"...

[DrVenture]

My 1998 Explorer, in fine state of repair and only a few years old, was recalled because the brake light switch was improperly engineered resulting in igniting the brake fluid. Burned down a few garages and we were told not to park indoors.

There was a safety recall for certain 2020-2024 Telluride vehicles (460,000) because front power seat motor could overheat, potentially resulting in a fire.

As of March 2024 more than 3.7 million cars that are currently on the road have a "park outside" recall, according to recent data from Carfax.

There was a recall for 3.3 million Kia and Hyundai vehicles issued to park outside for fire risk due to an electrical short from a brake fluid leak.

General Motors has announced a recall of potentially 40,428 Chevrolet Silverado trucks thanks to an increased fire risk and is encouraging owners to park outside for the time being. According to the Associated Press, the recall impacts 2019 through 2023 4500HD, 5500HD and 6500HD models.

This is just from 3 minutes of searching and mostly just the recent past, and all newer vehicles. All are hardware issues and unrelated to discipline. Many EV fires are the result of battery damage or severe accidents.

Some of the newer battery technologies in development are far less subject to fire.

[pbonsalb]

Even green stuff like forests catch on fire.

[kyriian]

Originally Posted by NSX2M4

This whole thread should just be renamed as, "GASLIGHTING"...

How about “All cars catch on fire, hide your kids and never leave your dungeon!!!”