Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95
Since you gave me a lengthy reply, I owe you the courtesy of replying to all of your points.
|
Strap in
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95
2. Well then what would be your example of typical? I was basically trying to find an example of what a burning battery looks like.
|
From my own PoV .. to qualify as 'typical' .. it would have to be within no more than 1 sigma from the mean .. any sigma higher than that is too much of the fringe to seem reasonable to justify the use of the term 'typical'.
Having difficulty in such a search is itself evidence .. that having been said .. there are numerous videos and such on the internet of car fires .. ICE or BEV.
However , as one looks at what is 'typical' today .. Point #1 retains it's significance about alternatives , even if they are not 'typical' today.
Personally .. sense you asked for my opinion .. if you are looking for a single car fire to be 'typical' so that you can then broadly apply that individual fire across the entire diverse class of BEVs .. I'd personally say that logic is fundamentally flawed .. that would be a misuse of what 'typical' is.
At best talking about 'typical' only tells you about 'typical' .. typical , by the very nature of what typical is , excludes those parts of the class which are not typical .. both those better and those worse.
You could look at the distribution %s of various BEVs today and use those to mathematically find a 'typical' .. weather it is a single specific vehicle .. or if that typical (due to the nature of such math) ends up being a mix of various different BEVs .. like the typical human is not necessarily a match to a specific individual real person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95
An EV will catch fire just like an ICE car in a car crash.
|
Too overly generalized to be anything but incorrect.
Although you haven't yet .. Even if you did yet show this to be true for a specific BEV vs a specific ICE .. that would not justify this claim about both entire classes .. Even if you did manage to show it to be the case for every specific BEV on the road today vs every ICE on the road today .. that still would not account for the issue of #1 .. the choices made and what options they have that they could have chosen differently.
Perhaps it will help .. if you accept that being a battery does not require that thing to also be flammable at all .. the ICE has no choice .. it must use a flammable / explosive fuel/energy-carrier .. the BEV does not share this fire risk requirement.
Even if a battery is chosen that is still flammable .. there are also battery choices that are less flammable than gasoline is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95
One of the big causes of fires in ICEs is lack of maintenance. It remains to be seen how EVs will withstand owners overheating the batteries and using bad charging habits.
|
Time will tell .. but so far everything I've seen puts BEVs further ahead of the ICEs in this regaurd .. they have more sensors throughout the system and keep better track of each part of the system.
For example (there are others) .. Very few ICEs have a temperature sensor inside the gas tank .. but .. BEVs it is a standard feature to have numerous temperature sensors inside the battery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IamIan
#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.
|
5-6. EVs have also gotten notable attention on fires too. |
I don't see the significance of someone bringing attention to a specific individual fire.
For example:
No amount of someone choosing to pay attention to one specific BEV fire, changes the NTSHA study or their findings in any way.
No amount of someone choosing to pay attention to one specific BEV fire, changes the fire safety improvements .. improvements that effected numerous vehicles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95
7. I gave you an example of this.
|
I am not aware of such an example being given.
I read you give an ICE example of the opposite .. one where the ICE OEM made choices , that made an ICE that was an even greater than normal ICE fire risk and danger .. then later when the OEM looses a lawsuit .. the NTSHA orders (they had not choice) to recall and fix the issue .. Then the OEM goes just far enough in the fix to make it comply with NTSHA and be more normal ICE risk of fire levels.
At best that example is a case of .. .1st .. 1 step backward (making things worse) .. then (only after they are forced to) 1 step forward .. if it hadn't been for the need to force them to fix it .. it might have just been -1+1=0 no net change overall .. but .. they did have to force them .. and they arguably did the bare minimum fix .. ie . overall it is more of an example of the opposite.
Compared to what we know of the BEV OEMs .. Even when a fire did happen .. and even though no one was finding them to have made a faulty or dangerous vehicle .. and no one was forcing them to take measures to improve it .. they voluntarily went out of their way to improve it.
Add Pintos .. etc .. the ICE industry as a track record that .. If anything the behavior of the two .. make the BEV look better than the ICE.
To qualify to be such an example as described in #7 .. the ICE example you give has to be .. fire safety progress .. I am not yet aware of such an example for ICEs in recent years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95
9. ICEs do carry more energy. However I dislike the idea of the majority of battery packs being directly underneath the passenger cabin, as opposed to a gas tank usually underneath the trunk.
|
You are welcome to your personal preference.
However .. point #5 stands .. unless you happen to personally be more qualified than the NTSHA to make such determinations .. well .. you'll need more than your personal preference to be convincing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95
10-11. I think the rise of EVs will represent a logarithmic graph rather than a linear or exponential one. I think ICEs will be relevant still in 100 years in some form or another.
|
possible .. however .. there are also compounding positive feedback mechanisms .. economies of scale work in both directions.
As the % of ICEs continues to slowly drop .. that means they loose more and more of the economies of scale leverages .. this will make them more expensive to make , to repair, to fuel , etc .. and as they slip further it only further encourages people to switch.
I personally expect a more compound curve .. for the next several decades we are in the positive feedback period .. every 1% more market share shifts to BEVs that means 1% market share shifts away from ICEs.
On the BEV side this means larger economies of scale .. thus cheaper / easier to make .. cheaper /easier to repair / service .. cheaper / easier to operate .. etc.
While on the ICE side the exact opposite happens .. as ICEs loose the current economies of scale benefits they enjoy today .. that means .. they become even more expensive/difficult to make .. even more expensive/difficult to service/repair .. eve more expensive/difficult to operate .. etc.
Soo at first it will be a slow , but increasing rate .. thus .. 5 year by 5 year type periods will initially look more like a near exponential shift.
Right now the magnitudes of changes are still small .. this first increasing slope period will take a long time.
Then eventually after a long period .. their will begin to become diminishing returns .. on both sides .. further loss of ICE % market share have smaller impacts .. and further gains of BEV % market share also have smaller impacts.
Thus eventually in toward the end .. I agree it will probably go more logarithmic .. very similar to the transition away from horses did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95
12. That would be good if those renewables took over. However, I believe that business owners would be very reluctant to embrace the new technology. It will likely be outside of most budgets, especially for small businesses.
|
It's the opposite effect.
Ultimately those businesses who invest in RE .. lower their operating costs .. increase their yearly profits .. and make themselves more competitive .. etc.
Those Businesses that don't do so .. they just in the long run end up spending more money on utilities , make themselves less competitive , reduce their profits , etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95
13. It would only take one breakthrough for biofuel to catch on.
|
Sorry .. but no.
Without 'magic' .. the current science limitations mean .. Bio-RE will always be less energy efficient , less land efficient , slower , more infrastructure dependents , etc , etc.
Just as an example of one of those:
The very best most efficient photo synthesis known is only about ~8% .. compared to the very best Photovoltaic over 40% .. and co-generation photovoltaic and solar thermal combined systems have been able to get around ~80% .. then it only gets worse .. the RE-Bio has less efficient steps to then apply that harvested solar energy to get desired work out of it .. like move a car .. heat a house .. etc.
At the current state .. it would actually take at least several dozens of major improvements .. or hundreds of small ones .. and even if that were to happen tomorrow .. that's just in the lab .. they are still decades behind in deployment of those .. and that is just to get them up to where other RE like Solar/Wind are already at today .. and while Bio-Re is trying to play catch-up it isn't like the Solar/wind is just waiting for them .. they keep moving too.
Maybe not impossible .. but .. outside of the two applications of our food and the air we breath .. Re-Bio is a dead end .. now for those two .. it would say it is likely to stay 'on top' for at least a few centuries yet.
Today
Other popular topics in this forum...
