Submitted by sacrificezones t3_yhdyhx in technology
Comments
GlowGreen1835 t1_iudagl3 wrote
That must have been one insane lan party.
Exshot32 t1_iudcta3 wrote
That and of course oil, gas, and other fluids now leaked into the environment.
funkboxing t1_iuddgn8 wrote
Any battery can ignite a fire but that isn't really comparable to a lithium ion battery fire. Addressing issues with EVs is how we make them safer, maybe knock off the pre-accusation of 'anti-EV' sentiment.
axecrazyorc t1_iudfwbh wrote
No, no, NO! There can be no improvement because [thing] is already perfect! If you ever criticize [thing] for any reason it’s because you’re morally against [thing] and are a shill for [corporate entity or industry]!
[deleted] t1_iudl1jz wrote
[deleted]
deltagear t1_iudl5u3 wrote
> fires require more water to extinguish flames
Well there's the problem, throwing water on to a lithium fire is like throwing gas onto a campfire.
[deleted] t1_iudlc6g wrote
[deleted]
natophonic2 t1_iudp53w wrote
Yeah, the feels of being pro-nuclear but also thinking that Chernobyl and Fukushima were bad things and that fission waste disposal could be improved a lot.
axecrazyorc t1_iudptc9 wrote
Feel that SO hard. What’s worse is you also have people on the OTHER side of the fence who believe one bad example of [thing] means all possible forms of [thing] must be bad. The actual anti-nuclear crowd who think all reactors everywhere are just Chernobyl. So the people with valid criticisms or ideas about how [thing] might be improved get shit on by both sides.
redditdeigy t1_iudpyf5 wrote
Like nuclear power plants. When all good it’s fine.
irishmadcat t1_iudq9ub wrote
If the Japanese goverment can't ensure a safe nuclear power plant I don't trust my own "ah we accidentally forgot our own environment regulations and approved a motorway" goverment. I don't they thinkk that's unreasonable.
axecrazyorc t1_iudth15 wrote
Then that’s not a criticism of nuclear power, it’s a criticism of of the government. Which is fully valid.
It’s also worth noting that the Fukushima reactor’s safety systems did EXACTLY what they were designed to do. The plant didn’t melt down, it flooded in a record-setting tsunami caused by the largest earthquake in Japanese history. Even then it caused 1 death from radiation poisoning and 13 non-fatal injuries. I’d say that’s pretty impressive all things considered. Hell, even the WHO said any increased risk of cancer due to radiation exposure was negligible, with radiation levels in the area being under 10 mSv over a lifetime, compared to 170 mSv from just normal background radiation.
robotobo t1_iue17do wrote
This isn't true with lithium batteries though. Most manufacturers recommend dousing thermal runaway events with water. Not because it smothers the fire, but because it can bring down the temperature enough to stop the event.
BoricPenguin t1_iue2t2l wrote
Did you know there's different types of batteries and you for some reason want to cover up this problem...
Batteries catching fire is actually a real fucking problem for EVs! They're massive and extremely hard to put out unlike a ICE car.....
Why care you trying to act like this isn't a problem when it is.
AlanBarber t1_iue3kk0 wrote
I have family that owns a condo on the gulf. One of the neighbors who owns a tesla left it on the first floor of the parking garage plugged into the charging stations.
Flood waters were about 10 foot and ended up causing the sucker to burn up. Took out all the charging stations and left one hell of a scorch mark on the floor and ceiling!
ChairliftGuru t1_iue719n wrote
The amount of energy stored is vastly different. EVs still have that standard battery as well so I dont really even understand your point. It just seems like you want to preemptively pick a fight.
Scarecrow119 t1_iueiziu wrote
I stole a house for sale sign after a lan once. This is like 20 levels above. Hardcore
happyscrappy t1_iuelcnr wrote
There isn't any of that kind of lithium (elemental lithium) in a lithium ion battery. Lithium ion batteries use lithium salts.
It's like saying water is highly combustible because it has hydrogen in it.
Dr-Beeps t1_iuelqzl wrote
The fire brigades in the Netherlands actually are testing with big containers with water to lift the burning EV car in. They just drown the car.
Dr-Beeps t1_iuemaxq wrote
The dumb Germans started shutting down their plants because of Fukushima. Stupid considering they don’t have earthquakes and no coastline to speak of.
Dr-Beeps t1_iuemjmt wrote
The fire brigades in the Netherlands actually are testing with big containers with water to lift the burning EV car in. They just drown the car.
axecrazyorc t1_iuenliq wrote
r/mildlyinfuriating material, that. Imagine Americans suddenly having a debilitating fear of geothermal after a volcano in Hawaii…
Actually I can 100% imagine that happening if politicians put the right spin on it. Probably say something about Yellowstone. Iirc that’s how it went in Germany; politicians with fossil fuel ties hit the ground running and drove a panic about how “DaNgErOuS” nuclear power is. And seeing as how the average person of any nation has as much sense as a goose, and only get stupider the more you group together, it wasn’t hard to convince them that every reactor in Europe was a hard rain from glassing the entire continent.
Awwwmann t1_iueupp3 wrote
This happened during Irma and Ian. Teslas and golf carts burned down many homes here. ICE engines fared much better than teslas here in south west Florida.
strcrssd t1_iuevhrj wrote
Except that lithium ion batteries contain only traces of lithium metal. Water is entirely appropriate and is the recommended method of handling lithium ion battery fires.
The lithium in lithium ion batteries is in a salt. The same way that sodium and chlorine are both extremely toxic in elemental form yet quite tasty as table salt.
strcrssd t1_iuevnax wrote
No, it's not true. It fundamentally misunderstands lithium ion battery technology and the very basics of chemistry.
wanted_to_upvote t1_iuew29c wrote
I think those percentages are under all conditions. In flood conditions the batteries are far more likely to catch fire than an internal combustion engine. I am a big fan of EV's and own one but this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed going forward.
strcrssd t1_iuew5ro wrote
In other news, it was 10 feet of salt water. The fire means nothing. The charging stations were likewise destroyed by salt water if not fire.
EVs have a much lower risk of fire than internal combustion vehicles.
strcrssd t1_iuex4g7 wrote
Because the incidence of fires is very low compared to combustion vehicles.. That said, putting them out is more difficult. The problem is that socially, people over inflate the danger of EV fires and make people shy away from them when they're the best short to intermediate term solution we have for climate change.
It's not covering up the problem, at all, it's stopping the fear, uncertainty and doubt train spread by people who don't like change and/or profit from oil and gas extraction/combustion. It's acknowledging all the facts, good and bad, over short and long term.
strcrssd t1_iuex7qr wrote
Yeah, this is a good approach that I hope both works and catches on.
alaninsitges t1_iuexg4o wrote
No vehicles caught fire. The post title is a complete fabrication, same OP posted it all over Reddit.
upsidevalue t1_iueyura wrote
Okay, Walter.
upsidevalue t1_iuez4mz wrote
Damn, boy. You’re sweating over here. How much are you being paid to worship EV’s?
strcrssd t1_iuf014j wrote
Nothing, posting to correct bad information like everyone should be doing, versus propagating fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
[deleted] t1_iuf25ex wrote
[deleted]
Spreaded_shrimp t1_iuf27jk wrote
How many PCs do you figure you could V2L off of that car before this happens.
upsidevalue t1_iuf3247 wrote
Tesla’s are unsafe. They don’t even stop for kids.
psyon t1_iuf8a9d wrote
Huh? I grew up along the Mississippi River, and have been through a lot of flooding on it and the tributaries in my area. Don't recall any car fires from floods.
psyon t1_iuf8xkx wrote
Is that statistic in context of hurricanes or in general?
morcantium t1_iufcjbc wrote
I agree, it's not true about water acting like gasoline with lithium fires. But it is true they are hard to extinguish. Water doesn't make a lithium fire worse but neither will it extinguish the fire. You've got to spray water on the batteries for up to 90 minutes until the batteries burn out to keep the area cooled off. Or just let it burn and keep people away if that's a feasible option. An electric car can take 20,000 gallons of water (or more) before the fire goes out depending on battery size. They've now got fire blankets designed to contain these fires to help protect surrounding vehicles/buildings but good luck getting close enough to fit one around a burning vehicle. Source: I just went on a firefighters safety course on electric car fires.
anunfriendlytoaster t1_iufeai1 wrote
Who is this Ian?
bascule t1_iufwku0 wrote
Hurricane Ian destroyed 300,000 cars.
Of those 300,000, 6 were EVs that caught fire. That’s 0.003% of the total damaged cars.
Some non-EVs caught fire too, since waterlogged lead acid batteries will do that. But nobody’s reporting on that… wonder why?
The 6 EVs that caught fire received nearly nonstop news coverage and moral panic, with Republicans jumping on the issue.
While I think it’s a bit disappointing that half a dozen EVs caught fire, given the circumstances it does not seem like a large number, and the response from the media and Republicans ludicrously disproportionate.
What’s the term for that? Oh right, FUD
wanted_to_upvote t1_iug1dis wrote
They can be made to not catch fire when submerged in salt water. 6 is too many.
AlanBarber t1_iug4k53 wrote
Easy buddy, step back and chill, I'm not shiting on them, god knows I'd own nothing but evs if I could afford them.
Just sharing a personal story related to the article.
bascule t1_iug526l wrote
Case in point right here. Your post is a great example of moral panic: trying to make something sound like it’s a big deal while providing no justification for your concerns.
wanted_to_upvote t1_iug6i28 wrote
It is not 6 out 300,000. It is 6 out of how many EV's were submerged for some period of time. That failure rate is much higher than 6 out of 300,000 since the 300,000 number is all vehicles damaged in any way.
bascule t1_iug6xom wrote
Why is 6 cars too many? And why do you only care about the EVs? Hell, why do you care at all?
You’ve justified nothing. Still moral panic.
[deleted] t1_iugbumx wrote
[deleted]
oh_sneezeus t1_iughpia wrote
screw ordering a pizza for your friends, just fire roast a few DiGiorno instead tonight
strcrssd t1_iuglzll wrote
Agreed. They're much less likely to catch fire, but when they do they're difficult to put out.
As another commentator posted, fire brigades that deal with a lot of EVs are investigating using water tanks/pools and just lifting the burning vehicles into the water to drown the fire.
CollegeStation17155 t1_iuheq9l wrote
But what fraction of the 300,000 vehicles were EVs… if only 3000 of the destroyed vehicles were EVs, that 6 becomes a lot more significant, no? And also that number includes only the ones that caught fire immediately. The ones that seemed fine may still “bolt” months later if there is undetected corrosion. I saw that there was a recall recently when some company found their battery pack hadn’t been properly sealed and could get wet from rain.
Astronopolis t1_iuj4zie wrote
Salt water and enormous batteries? I don’t see anything wrong here said nobody ever.
Avangelice t1_iud888b wrote
Before some anti EV reditor comes, do know even ice cars goes boom in floods because we'll... Batteries