Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was agreeing with you so you don't need to tell me anything. The fact that the hybrid battery pack lasted almost twice that of the warranty (I think it's 8 years covered by basic mfg) was a testament to the vehicle's longevity. The few repairs necessary over the 15 year period we owned barely moved the needle on cost of ownership. However, of the things that did need attention, at least one was much more expensive than an equivalent for a traditional vehicle. The point is, anything with moving parts is eventually going to need maintenance and EVs are no different in spite of the sales pitch that says otherwise.
Well your comment was a bit of a strawman and I was referring in particular to your final sentence...."One of the big myths being promoted by EV propaganda is that there isn't any maintenance once all the dinosaur-tech stuff is removed. That's far from true though."
Exactly who promoted that myth/sales pitch? I don't know of anyone making that claim and we can both agree that the maintenance cost is less overall. If that's the myth you're referring to, I'd say the comment is true.
No. It wasn't because that's not what a straw argument is, nor a strawman fallacy. A strawman fallacy means to prop up a position that was never tendered, and try to falsely attribute that position to an opponent while simultaneously refuting it. A good example would be ovcrumbler's tangent about the frequency of vehicle fires between ICE and EVs, since I never once made the argument that EVs were a more frequent source of fires. That's a strawman. Got it? Cool.
Quote:
and I was referring in particular to your final sentence...."One of the big myths being promoted by EV propaganda is that there isn't any maintenance once all the dinosaur-tech stuff is removed. That's far from true though."
Exactly who promoted that myth/sales pitch? I don't know of anyone making that claim and we can both agree that the maintenance cost is less overall. If that's the myth you're referring to, I'd say the comment is true.
You may not be witness to it, but I see it promoted all over the place where EVs are being discussed. The idea is that dinosaur tech (i.e. ICE vehicle components) are prone to wear and more maintenance than EV components, and that going electric removes those costs entirely. That's partly true except that powertrains of EVs and traditional vehicles aren't completely dissimilar beyond the "fuels" they use, and the cost to maintaining a vehicle stems more from how well it's been designed than anything else. EV propaganda would have people thinking that just because they don't need frequent oil changes, the vehicle won't ever cost them a dime of maintenance. That's all that I meant. It's a sale pitch. And as all things are related to sales, it's not the gospel truth.
Yeah you created an imaginary villain that claims that there's no maintenance on hybrids and electric vehicles, which doesn't exist. Yep that's a straw man. But you do you.
And until they are, they aren't a comparable product to a traditional ICE vehicle or a hybrid.
Heh.
Thanks for trying to mansplain how to embed hyperlinks. Pretty funny.
Did you pay attention to the part in your random autoinsurance broker's link mentioning how much more difficult it is to extinguish Li Ion battery fires? Because I'm pretty sure that's precisely what I mentioned in my previous reply. That and the fact that much smaller, more common Li batteries than what powers EVs have started deadly fires and having even more Li in the presence of those fires, just adds another layer of danger. That's all there was to it.
More importantly, I've never said that the fire risk is a deal killer or that it's something to be fearful of beyond normal caution like anything else. That was your tangent. What I said was those risks haven't been adequately addressed.
That was a bit tongue in cheek, because you were putting up a false equivalency between my posts actually citing sources and working through the rationale for what I wrote versus people just writing unsourced bull****--it would at least be somewhat better that instead you were just unable to figure out hyperlinks rather than having a full lapse in reasoning or not having bothered to read the sources before replying.
I did pay attention to the part in my random autoinsurance broker's link (a link that also cites its own sources from the NTSB, BTS, and government recall data. I offered it as a *second* independent source from the original done by a Swedish government agency. These two aren't the only ones out there either. As for talking about the difficulty of extinguishing lithium-ion batteries, I had already mentioned that before in the previous posts. Take another look below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
...
The fire danger of lithium-ion batteries is there, but it's a fairly small risk compared to internal combustion engine vehicle fires. Thus far the stats bear out that internal combustion engine vehicle fire risk is about 19X higher than that of EV fires. That is to say, if the fire risk of EVs is unacceptable as they are now, then internal combustion engine vehicles with their 19x greater fire risk are even more unacceptable. There is something to be said that when EVs catch fire, the proportion of those fires are potentially more difficult but given a baseline of 19x greater fire risk, the total risk for difficult fires in internal combustion engine vehicles is even higher since you're talking about a problem space that's 19x worse unless the difficult fire ratio for EVs is also 19X greater than that of internal combustion engine vehicles which has not been borne out of any stats so far and likely never will.
As for other lithium-ion battery fires, yes, those also happen and I mentioned them already. Remember, EV traction batteries are massive, expensive, and regulated as they are large purchases that require a lot of hoops to jump through unlike buying random cut-rate batteries for small devices online. They by necessity and regulation come with battery thermal management systems and have to go through a battery (ha.) of tests in order to sell those vehicles in the US. This isn't necessarily true for the devices which I mentioned in this same thread here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
...
Yes, there is an increase in e-bike battery fires as there are an increase in e-bikes. I know that block in Chinatown pretty well and those e-bike shops specifically are bad, because they import super cheap batteries from no name manufacturers where the batteries are not QA'd and not UL-certified. I'm all for enforcing UL certification and heavy penalties for anyone smuggling in and selling otherwise. Perhaps you don't know this, but four-wheeled highway legal electric vehicles sold in the US (i.e. the vehicles that are covered by the link the OP posted) *are* UL certified and tested. Wow! I'll go one step further. As the number of EVs increase likely by two to three orders of magnitude as they'll likely within a few decades result in almost total private passenger fleet replacement of ICE vehicles, there will be more EV battery fires. They'll still almost certainly be fewer fires per vehicle compared to ICE vehicles, but there will be in total amounts more fires in the coming years because even though they are *less* of a fire risk than ICE vehicles, the sheer number of them that will likely be produced and on the road as they probably take over market share from almost the entire ICE vehicle market means that you have a larger base to multiply that fire risk.
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by joosoon
No. It wasn't because that's not what a straw argument is, nor a strawman fallacy. A strawman fallacy means to prop up a position that was never tendered, and try to falsely attribute that position to an opponent while simultaneously refuting it. A good example would be ovcrumbler's tangent about the frequency of vehicle fires between ICE and EVs, since I never once made the argument that EVs were a more frequent source of fires. That's a strawman. Got it? Cool.
You may not be witness to it, but I see it promoted all over the place where EVs are being discussed. The idea is that dinosaur tech (i.e. ICE vehicle components) are prone to wear and more maintenance than EV components, and that going electric removes those costs entirely. That's partly true except that powertrains of EVs and traditional vehicles aren't completely dissimilar beyond the "fuels" they use, and the cost to maintaining a vehicle stems more from how well it's been designed than anything else. EV propaganda would have people thinking that just because they don't need frequent oil changes, the vehicle won't ever cost them a dime of maintenance. That's all that I meant. It's a sale pitch. And as all things are related to sales, it's not the gospel truth.
There are some very quantifiable differences between an internal combustion engine powertrain and an electric vehicle powertrain and those *do* have influence on the likely of fire.
To say that I went on a tangent in regards to fire risk does not make sense, because I explicitly stated why I was mentioning these where I stated:
Quote:
That is to say, if the fire risk of EVs is unacceptable as they are now, then internal combustion engine vehicles with their 19x greater fire risk are even more unacceptable.
If people are willing to operate vehicles that thus far have demonstrated far greater fire risk that I've shown through two different reports coming from two different countries (and these are not the only recent ones available), then citing the fire risk of EV traction batteries as the reason to avoid EVs in terms of four-wheeled highway legal vehicles is absurd. That is not a tangent--that is directly in response to what you said about this
Quote:
Originally Posted by joosoon
It's amazing how much power can be cleanly and efficiently squeezed out of a drop of gas these days. But that doesn't mitigate the c02 issue which is what now steers the climate goals.
The problem with electrics is they aren't an equivalent product of convenience compared to traditional vehicles, because there is no ten-minute fill up. Ranges have gotten better, but not enough to make all travel types equitable.
The other problem which hasn't been addressed very well (or at all) is the fire danger of lithium ion batteries. Much smaller Li batteries have burned down homes, etc. and those fires are very difficult to knock down.
I am directly addressing that. I also do not think there is *zero* fire risk from EVs or that there won't be any in the future, but remember that this topic started off with new vehicle market share of EVs out of the *total* four-wheeled highway legal vehicle sales for the Bay Area. The comparison is appropriate in this case as is addressing a criticism you made that is thus far unsupported especially that little bit of "(or at all)" which is just plain ridiculous.
There are some very tangible and reasonable arguments for issues with EVs right now and in regards to whether or not they may be the best fit for any particular person. There's a good at *least* half of the US households overall where an EV at this moment makes little sense as they would be a disadvantageous for them to own one. There's also good arguments for why moving everyone towards EV ownership is *not* a panacea for pollution or are somewhat limited compared to other alternatives in regards to mitigating the projected quantity and effects of CO2 emissions. However, instead of arguing about those reasons, we're instead getting a lot of parroting of things that are just plain inaccurate.
That was a bit tongue in cheek, because you were putting up a false equivalency between my posts actually citing sources and working through the rationale for what I wrote versus people just writing unsourced bull****--it would at least be somewhat better that instead you were just unable to figure out hyperlinks rather than having a full lapse in reasoning or not having bothered to read the sources before replying.
Why would I read it when I never made any sort of claim about the frequency of fires? That was your invention, your argument, your discussion with an imaginary person crafting an imaginary contention. What I *did* say was (and it was a really small aside to the conversation), the fire issue hasn't properly been addressed yet. Fire science has a good understanding of putting out flames from traditional fire fuel sources and centuries of practice doing it. The same isn't the case with lithium ion batteries since they are relatively modern invention. That's why fire departments are adopting new strategies to deal with them.
Me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by joosoon
The other problem which hasn't been addressed very well (or at all) is the fire danger of lithium ion batteries. Much smaller Li batteries have burned down homes, etc. and those fires are very difficult to knock down.
Why would I read it when I never made any sort of claim about the frequency of fires? That was your invention, your argument, your discussion with an imaginary person crafting an imaginary contention. What I *did* say was (and it was a really small aside to the conversation), the fire issue hasn't properly been addressed yet. Fire science has a good understanding of putting out flames from traditional fire fuel sources and centuries of practice doing it. The same isn't the case with lithium ion batteries since they are relatively modern invention. That's why fire departments are adopting new strategies to deal with them.
Me:
You:
"BUT ICE CARS CATCH FIRE ALL THE TIME!!!"
Who said "BUT ICE CARS CATCH FIRE ALL THE TIME!!!" or anything remotely like that? What you said was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by joosoon
It's amazing how much power can be cleanly and efficiently squeezed out of a drop of gas these days. But that doesn't mitigate the c02 issue which is what now steers the climate goals.
The problem with electrics is they aren't an equivalent product of convenience compared to traditional vehicles, because there is no ten-minute fill up. Ranges have gotten better, but not enough to make all travel types equitable.
The other problem which hasn't been addressed very well (or at all) is the fire danger of lithium ion batteries. Much smaller Li batteries have burned down homes, etc. and those fires are very difficult to knock down.
This isn't actually true for EV traction batteries. I went through the trouble of actually showing you stats from two different entities on why, and I can show you more. If you think the fire risk hasn't been properly addressed yet and that is being cited as a reason for opting to get a modern internal combustion engine vehicle instead, then that's foolish because the fire risk is much higher and yet that isn't a show stopper for internal combustion engine vehicles. The idea that the problem of fire dangers from EV lithium-ion batteries haven't been addressed very well or "at all" as you've stated is inaccurate. There's quite a bit of engineering and testing going into these vehicles and the thermal management system is a huge part of this. You don't seem to be aware of this and so if the argument is that the fire danger of lithium-ion batteries are too high, and yet the fire danger of internal combustion engine vehicles are even higher in a topic that is inherently about market share differences between EVs and internal combustion engine vehicles, then it's nonsense for you to state that since the commonly accepted fire danger of internal combustion engine vehicles have thus far been demonstrably far higher. This isn't even remotely close to arguing "BUT ICE CARS CATCH FIRE ALL THE TIME!!!". You simply do not understand what you're talking about. Evident to just about everyone else, you couldn't even read a basic laymen's article about this right and thought it was an absolute numbers game and yet you still think you have a leg to stand on in this argument.
Remember, you brought this up first and I answered in kind. I also stated and explained why despite there not being complete equivalence for all situations between electric vehicles and internal combustion engines, they can still be a good choice because there are contexts where electric vehicles are the better fit for some people and some situations. There are advantages and disadvantages between the two depending on the use case. This could be a good starting point for a reasonable discussion on the matter and for reasons why it seems like the Bay Area and the other metropolitan areas (Seattle, San Diego, Sacramento, Portland, and Los Angeles) cited from the survey the OP post sources have taken up EVs at a faster rate.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 06-26-2023 at 03:50 PM..
Assumptions that are backed up with recent stats and links are not assumptions. You just said a bunch of random things with no support, which as pointed out by blameyourself, is an awful lot of conjecture.
The problem is that for just about every link you provided I can provide you a link that says otherwise. Especially if it comes from some asswipe startup "CEO" who will say anything to get investments. So unless you have hard statistics straight from US G this is all theoretical.
Quote:
EV traction batteries in terms of battery materials are in essentially two buckets. It's the lithium ternary batteries that generally use nickel-manganese-cobalt cathode in differing ratios and then there's lithium iron phosphate batteries where iron and phosphate are the cathodes. They may different in form factor (prismatic cells, cylindrical cells, pouch cells) and quantity and the chemistry may have different ratios, but they are only in two buckets thus far and for the near term future will remain in two buckets. These don't matter because ultimately they get shredded up when it comes to recycling and then separated in processes that generally do not care what form factor, quantity, or ratio they are in. That process is already underway as posted in the previous link and the process compared to price of raw mined material is good enough now that they are profitable and competitive with raw ore so therefore are fine. The largest issue with recycling right now is just that so few EVs have actually reached their end of life so currently most recycling is from scrappage from battery makers when they have batches that don't pass QA--this was covered in the earlier link citing one of the major recyclers though there are others essentially saying the same thing.
All of this is just theoretical bs until there are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of batteries recycled every single year. The current rate of lithium batteries recycling in the world is about 5%. I can provide a link to that but I'm sure you can google it yourself. When that reaches close to 100%, you call me and we'll have a discussion again.
Quote:
Yes, EVs can get destroyed in various ways just as any vehicle can. Again, the battery materials generally don't get destroyed in the process only the functionality of the battery such as with flooding or car crashes. They're not usable for EVs or for second life usage as stationary storage systems, but they are still valuable and recoverable--they just can't be used for much *except* for recycling. Fires and explosions do happen, but are quite rare overall (and as shown in a previous link, fires are far less common for EVs than they are for ICE vehicles) unless you're trying to say that a majority of EVs or even a substantial percentage get totaled within a few years of production which would almost certainly be complete and utter bull****. For fires, I'm not sure about the extent of how recoverable the materials. Ostensibly, the raw material are mostly or completely still there since fire doesn't atomically change the base material into another element, but how easy it is to recover is probably on a case by case basis.
Where's the hard data about how much reusable material is left after a nice full-scale battery fire of some Tesla? I'm not seeing it. Doesn't that mean that you're fully talking out of your tailpipe again? I think it might.
That aside, the whole "EV fires are less common" is a huge bunch of very carefully selected bs. EVs are a small percentage of the current world auto park. Many are expensive models such as Tesla, Rivian and Lucid owned by wealthy people who take care of them in every way possible. When some of them are 20+ year old beat into a bloody pulp jalopies that have been in every situation an ICE car has been through so far and their fire level is magnitudes less then we can talk about the real world numbers. Until then it's all bs theory and cleverly tuned statistics. By people like you. I mean have you every seen a beater Tesla? I live in the Bay Area with literally thousands of them around I'm yet to see a single one.
Quote:
Yes, there are tons of factors--that's why it was an *AVERAGE*. Do you understand what that means? This includes vehicles treated like crap.
You're missing the point which is hardly surprising. It's too early to make averages for EVs considering that vast majority of them are barely 5 years old or less. Do you understand what that means?
Quote:
Yea, you can go on and on, and as you keep going on and on it becomes more and more apparent you don't know what you're talking about. Going for length without much thinking does not help your case.
Yes, 40 years of obsessing with cars and tons of research on EVs including driving a pair of Teslas - you're right, I have no clue. You got me there. Of course Elon fanbois like yourself always know better.
The problem is that for just about every link you provided I can provide you a link that says otherwise. Especially if it comes from some asswipe startup "CEO" who will say anything to get investments. So unless you have hard statistics straight from US G this is all theoretical.
All of this is just theoretical bs until there are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of batteries recycled every single year. The current rate of lithium batteries recycling in the world is about 5%. I can provide a link to that but I'm sure you can google it yourself. When that reaches close to 100%, you call me and we'll have a discussion again.
Where's the hard data about how much reusable material is left after a nice full-scale battery fire of some Tesla? I'm not seeing it. Doesn't that mean that you're fully talking out of your tailpipe again? I think it might.
That aside, the whole "EV fires are less common" is a huge bunch of very carefully selected bs. EVs are a small percentage of the current world auto park. Many are expensive models such as Tesla, Rivian and Lucid owned by wealthy people who take care of them in every way possible. When some of them are 20+ year old beat into a bloody pulp jalopies that have been in every situation an ICE car has been through so far and their fire level is magnitudes less then we can talk about the real world numbers. Until then it's all bs theory and cleverly tuned statistics. By people like you. I mean have you every seen a beater Tesla? I live in the Bay Area with literally thousands of them around I'm yet to see a single one.
You're missing the point which is hardly surprising. It's too early to make averages for EVs considering that vast majority of them are barely 5 years old or less. Do you understand what that means?
Yes, 40 years of obsessing with cars and tons of research on EVs including driving a pair of Teslas - you're right, I have no clue. You got me there. Of course Elon fanbois like yourself always know better.
I think you should post these links so we know what you're citing specifically, so we can debate the source and contents. Remember, I'm talking about EV traction batteries--the sort where a single vehicle has a battery pack weighing hundreds of kilograms and thus has not just a dense concentration of battery materials, but a fairly large quantity in a single vehicle. There is a difference between these and portable electronics where you're talking about batteries that are possibly less than a kilogram battery packs in it and can vary quite a bit more in the chemistries used.
I did link to an interview from the head of Redwood Materials since they are one of the largest American battery recyclers. They are particularly cozy with Tesla which perhaps makes it a bit of a mystery if there's something particular that Tesla does, but they do not. However, they're also far from the only game in town. For another example, Spiers New Technologies which is owned by Cox Automotive, also has gone on to state that the cost associated with recycling a lithium-ion battery pack is a net positive where they pay you for it. You don't need all companies that are working on recycling batteries to be profitable since if the company can't find a way to make a profit on recycling and that's their main business, then they aren't going to last very long. Already though, I've cited two. Here's the quote from the head of Spiers:
Quote:
“A couple of years ago there was a cost associated with recycling a lithium-ion battery pack. Now it is a positive,” he said. “If you give me a lithium-ion battery pack, I probably will give you money back for it. And that’s the beauty of it. The intrinsic value of that battery pack is higher than the cost of recycling.”
What of the my post you quoted is theoretical BS? It's a known fact that EV traction batteries are split into lithium iron phosphate and ternary lithium batteries. You seem that in any market share comparison of EV battery chemistries from the last several years like here, here, or here. That's just how the state of the technology and the market is. There may be successful other battery chemistries in the future, but for now, this is the pretty much the entire EV traction battery market. Again, EV traction batteries are a specific subset of secondary cell batteries in the world and you have multiple recyclers for that which have reached profitability in those operations. It also doesn't make that much sense to talk about this in the sense that you need hundreds of thousands or millions of EV batteries to be recycled for this to be profitable--multiple recycles have already reached profitability and the idea that scaling up for when there are more sources of this somehow means it then becomes *not* profitable? While there are certainly many factors that can change, the idea that scaling up would somehow trend towards this in the opposite direction and move from profitable to not profitable doesn't make much sense. Where are you getting this projection from.
I already stated that I don't have the hard data on how recyclable batteries that a full scale battery fire would have. There's no point where I argued that I knew what the stats on battery material recovery from fires are--what I said was that I don't know. I said that it's probably a case by case basis depending on the kind of damage it has and there is no atomic change in the materials from a fire as it's a chemical process. Let me bold that for you since you missed it the first time:
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
If you look at the link with the report that's cited, you'd see that the Bay Area isn't a huge outlier but rather the top of a pack of vehicle markets in the March report. As quoted:
Seattle where you're located, and surely you couldn't have missed this trend, and San Diego were both already above 35% plugins for new vehicle registrations. Nearby to Seattle, Portland along with LA and Sacramento metropolitan areas were also above 30% already. Tailing that are many more above 25% and 20%. Remember, that was in March of this year and we're closing out June and during that time there had been new releases and ramp ups of existing vehicles.
It is amazing, but even at the best of conditions with hybrids, we're topping out around 40% efficiency and that's for a very narrow band of conditions for only a very small segment of conventional hybrids. It's still a lot wasted as waste heat.
The problem you're citing has narrowed pretty quickly in the last decade where a decade ago the best you get for 10 minutes of charge time is about 50 miles. Now the top line for a mass production vehicle is about 150 miles in ten minutes which is a three fold improvement in a decade.
That's for DC public charging which is the closest analogue to gas station fill-up--with electric vehicles you actually have another option which is to slow charge them at home or at work when the vehicle is parked anyways and which is the vast majority of all charging done for EVs. You presumably are for the most part going to have your vehicle parked for hours at a time every single day and the convenience factor there is that most EV owners get their miles from charging when the vehicles would be parked anyways so it ends up being far more convenient. This changes once the market for those who have a pathway to charge at home (about half of US households) is saturated which is close to what the Bay Area is at now, so it'll be interesting to see how that adoption rate goes afterwards which would be dependent on how many fast chargers are deployed, how much faster chargers become, and how ubiquitous things like workplace charging or shopping center and other destination charging becomes. That part is pretty interesting.
The fire danger of lithium-ion batteries is there, but it's a fairly small risk compared to internal combustion engine vehicle fires. Thus far the stats bear out that internal combustion engine vehicle fire risk is about 19X higher than that of EV fires. That is to say, if the fire risk of EVs is unacceptable as they are now, then internal combustion engine vehicles with their 19x greater fire risk are even more unacceptable. There is something to be said that when EVs catch fire, the proportion of those fires are potentially more difficult but given a baseline of 19x greater fire risk, the total risk for difficult fires in internal combustion engine vehicles is even higher since you're talking about a problem space that's 19x worse unless the difficult fire ratio for EVs is also 19X greater than that of internal combustion engine vehicles which has not been borne out of any stats so far and likely never will.
Assumptions that are backed up with recent stats and links are not assumptions. You just said a bunch of random things with no support, which as pointed out by blameyourself, is an awful lot of conjecture.
EV traction batteries in terms of battery materials are in essentially two buckets. It's the lithium ternary batteries that generally use nickel-manganese-cobalt cathode in differing ratios and then there's lithium iron phosphate batteries where iron and phosphate are the cathodes. They may different in form factor (prismatic cells, cylindrical cells, pouch cells) and quantity and the chemistry may have different ratios, but they are only in two buckets thus far and for the near term future will remain in two buckets. These don't matter because ultimately they get shredded up when it comes to recycling and then separated in processes that generally do not care what form factor, quantity, or ratio they are in. That process is already underway as posted in the previous link and the process compared to price of raw mined material is good enough now that they are profitable and competitive with raw ore so therefore are fine. The largest issue with recycling right now is just that so few EVs have actually reached their end of life so currently most recycling is from scrappage from battery makers when they have batches that don't pass QA--this was covered in the earlier link citing one of the major recyclers though there are others essentially saying the same thing.
Yes, EVs can get destroyed in various ways just as any vehicle can. Again, the battery materials generally don't get destroyed in the process only the functionality of the battery such as with flooding or car crashes. They're not usable for EVs or for second life usage as stationary storage systems, but they are still valuable and recoverable--they just can't be used for much *except* for recycling. Fires and explosions do happen, but are quite rare overall (and as shown in a previous link, fires are far less common for EVs than they are for ICE vehicles) unless you're trying to say that a majority of EVs or even a substantial percentage get totaled within a few years of production which would almost certainly be complete and utter bull****. For fires, I'm not sure about the extent of how recoverable the materials. Ostensibly, the raw material are mostly or completely still there since fire doesn't atomically change the base material into another element, but how easy it is to recover is probably on a case by case basis.
Yes, there are tons of factors--that's why it was an *AVERAGE*. Do you understand what that means? This includes vehicles treated like crap.
Yea, you can go on and on, and as you keep going on and on it becomes more and more apparent you don't know what you're talking about. Going for length without much thinking does not help your case.
Yea, it's foolishness in that it's people chiming in without having much knowledge of the space and seeming to parrot the same wrong things over and over again.
I'd like you to explain how I was missing the point about average miles before a car is no longer usable. I cited an average of the *entire* fleet, not just EVs. The point being made was that the batteries are rated for duty cycles that would be longer than the average miles before current fleet (*all* vehicles) are generally retired for good. That wasn't EV-specific and it was cited towards a comparison to the rated duty cycle of the batteries.
Battery fires are pretty rare so far and at a far lower incidence rate over the last decade than that of internal combustion engine fires. I do recognize there can be problems so far which is why I say, italicized above, that "thus far the stats bear out ...". I recognize that there can be changes to that in various ways or other factors leading to why there's thus far such a massive lopsided incident rate difference citing from multiple sources and from different countries (Sweden and the US so far, but there are more!) with different conditions that can change that. The odd thing to me here is that thus far the stats bear out the fire risk being much higher for ICE vehicles than BEVs, so it doesn't make that much sense to me to talk about this risk as a showstopper for EVs when there's little evidence that it is of greater risk, but rather of much, much lower risk.
Yes, I think there's pretty good indication you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not an "Elon fanboi" and I have no idea why he is such an important figure to you nor am I particularly interested in why you're so into him. I've driven Teslas which are fine, but they aren't my favorite vehicles though some of the engineering is pretty interesting. What might be true though is that a large percentage of Americans don't believe EV batteries are recyclable, but just having that belief without actually looking into the matter doesn't mean it's true.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 06-30-2023 at 10:29 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
