Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95
Are you saying that they are comparable other than the higher energy content of crude oil derived fuels?
|
No , I made no such claim.
Sense you're asking about me .. I would also say , I don't think 'comparable' , is a useful term in the context of this discussion .. especially applied as it was in that sentence .. far too vague/general/open-ended/etc .. me personally me , I would prefer to be more specific.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95
I'm confused as to what exactly you are saying.
|
In the post of mine you referenced I wrote about several things.
I will try to provide additional explanations bellow of each to help clarify .. mostly chronologically:
Please , let me know if any further clarification on any specific part is needed.
---
#1> It is important to recognize the relevance/consequences of choices that are being made in certain examples referenced.
If person 1 chooses battery 1 (that is not as fire safe as battery 2) to use in BEV 1 .. that choice matters .. a different choice , such as to the more fire safe battery 2 , would have changed how fire safe BEV 1 is.
Just because person 1 made that choice , does not mean all other possible battery choices would produce the same results.
Choosing to use a non-matched battery pack is not the same as choosing to use a matched battery pack.
Choosing to use a non-balanced battery pack is not the same as choosing to use a balanced battery pack.
Choosing to not use thermal regulation of the battery pack is not the same as choosing to use thermal regulation of the battery pack.
etc .. etc.
If someone is trying to make a very broad/general/generic claim .. BEVs (ALL) .. and .. ICEs (ALL) .. that effectively blunts the bell curve .. due to the vast number of different options and the effect of those options.
------
#2> It is not reasonable (even misleading) to use the terminology 'typical' when referencing the Rich Rebuilds Fire.
As per #1 .. The rich example , had many choices made that vastly changed the risks .. risk of an event happening .. and the risk of the severity of that event (if it happened) .. their numerous far from the mean choices .. effectively moved this example into such a high sigma away from the mean , so as to no longer be reasonable to refer to is as 'typical'.
-----
#3> Not all battery types pose equal risk .. risk of an event happening .. or if/when an event happens, how sever it is likely to be.
I gave one such example on the battery level that can make a statistically significant effect of such risks .. I also gave some basic highlights as to the pros and cons of such a choice , why in some instances a person might choose option1 is 'good enough' , instead of the sacrifices needed for an alternative option2.
-----
#4> The two classes do not have equal availability to them of choices for improved fire safety.
The BEV has options the ICE does not.
The ICE have options the BEV does not.
I also gave an example .. while the BEV class does have the option available to it to choose to use battery types that can vastly reduce the risks , and the severity ... the ICE class does not have that option available , due to the science of how an ICE works, it is required to use energy dense fuels that are flammable / explosive / etc.
I personally suspect that in terms of safety .. and even specifically about fire safety .. the breadth of options available to BEVs , gives them a potential to exceed the options available to ICEs.
------
#5> I pointed out to you that there was a context in which the NTHSA already answered the question you asked about the risk of fire in BEV or ICE.
------
#6> I pointed out that sense that time (point #5 above) .. there has been media coverage of significant / noteworthy safety improvements (and specifically fire safety) , that have been implemented on various BEVs.
-----
#7> I pointed out that over the same time period (#6 above) .. I am not aware of any similar reports nor adds of the available ICE's having implemented any improvements to their fire safety systems.
-----
#8> I pointed out that given #5 , #6, #7 .. it is reasonable to assume .. at a minimum #5 is likely to still apply today .. and .. it is also reasonable to think that things are possibly even better for the BEV today.
-----
#9> I pointed out the significance of energy content .. The ICE has a much higher likelihood of bringing with it a much larger amount of energy .. because of how energy dense it's fuel is , and because of how low efficiency ICEs are , it is very common to carry significant quantities of that fuel/energy-carrier.
Any such ICE that brings more kwh of energy , can always do more work .. how much can you burn to ashes , how hot can you make something , how much metal can you melt , etc .. any type of work requires energy to do it.
-----
#10> I agree with previous post about comparing horses still in use today .. the ICE is not likely to go to true zero , just like the horse still hasn't .. but it will move more and more to the rarity/exception/fringe etc.
-----
#11> I suspect #10 above .. is likely to be a slow process in the 50-100 year range.
-----
#12> Part of my reason to suspect #11 as an ovrall trend direction .. is the net total life time costs.
RE (solar/wind) are already starting to beat out (increasingly more commonly) the stationary combustion engines .. such stationary combustion engines have inherent advantages , which can be more tweaked for better efficiencies and such than mobile application can .. and yet , even those stationary applications are staring to buckle to the increasing financial pressures of RE systems.
-----
#13> Bio-Fuels are already significantly behind (with no sign of catching up) the development and implementation curves ... compared to Solar/Wind/etc , and BEVs.
Soo , while in principle you can run your ICE on solar energy from plants/ algae , etc .. , similar to a solar fueled BEV .. the current situation has that bio-option way behind the likes of solar/wind.