4 ms·

This is why regulations are sometimes the sole feasible option.

by mint2 5y ago

busterarm 5y ago
You don't want regulation forcing these things into your properties without also some way of containing their fires and their fumes (which are highly toxic).
- wing-_-nuts 5y ago
  Why are you more concerned about EV fires when gas fires have been a thing for the past century? We had a parked car go up in flames at work and nobody was calling for the company to ban ice cars.
  - busterarm 5y ago
    Parked ICE cars _rarely_ catch fire just sitting parked. When they do it's usually electrical system issues that started a larger fire (I'm looking at you, VW, Audi). Battery fires commonly occur while at rest. More importantly, they can't be put out (and are accelerated) by common indoor sprinkler systems and the toxic fumes will keep you from getting close enough to use a Class D extinguisher anyway. Much unlike ICE cars. Additionally, lithium batteries burn at 1000+ degrees vs gas fires which burn at hundreds and batteries tend to EXPLODE, whereas gas just burns unless the fire starts from inside the pressurized tank (which is virtually impossible).
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
      EV cars rarely catch fire also? If I'm mistaken, and EV fires are endemic or something, please post a source that lays out the fire rates between ev and ice cars. I think banning them is a stupid, ignorant solution in search of a problem, and I don't own one, nor will I for the foreseeable future. Edit: study here: https://www.autoinsuranceez.com/gas-vs-electric-car-fires/ https://www.autoinsuranceez.com/gas-vs-electric-car-fires/
      - busterarm 5y ago
        They rarely catch fire, but ICE cars catching fire while parked is even more rare. Plus EV fires are significantly more catastrophic. I also think banning EVs would be stupid, but we need to be serious about having the proper infrastructure to support them and nobody is talking about it. I don't want an EV within 50 yards of my house or really any other indoor structure. They should be required to be parked outdoors and with a minimum distance to other property. EVs are being pushed on us without any regard to their impracticality wrt property damage. I think they have great potential for shared vehicle programs, "self-driving" and public transit applications. As my personal daily? You're crazy.
        brianwawok 5y ago
        You make a lot of bold claims with no evidence. Good thing I guess that you don't get to dictate federal policy, which is moving in the opposite direction.
        busterarm 5y ago
        https://www.wsbtv.com/news/georgia/experts-warn-firefighters-need-be-better-prepared-electric-vehicle-fires-become-more-common/ZHKNVLIVQ5HUNEI45XF4TT3QUY/ https://www.wsbtv.com/news/georgia/experts-warn-firefighters... “We carry 500 to 1000 gallons of water on all of our fire engines. And usually that’s plenty enough water to extinguish your typical internal combustion car fire,” Buck said. But where a normal car fire takes about 500 gallons of water, essentially 1 truckload, this fire took 28,000 gallons. That’s the equivalent of 56 fire trucks. In this case, there was a hydrant nearby. But without that, firefighters would have had to shuttle in water. “As it ended up, we were there for four hours putting water on the car and we continue to have what’s called thermal runaway with the battery packs,” Buck said. Thermal runaway is what happens when different battery cells under the car keep igniting. That’s a basic difference too. Water needs to get underneath the car where the battery cells are located. Firefighters in the Netherlands even tried using a crane to dunk a BMW hybrid in a pool of water to stop the thermal runaway and put out the fire. It's also worth noting that hybrid vehicles actually catch fire at a higher rate than ICE cars...It's likely that plug-in electric hybrids are being counted in hybrid fire statistics instead of EV.
- mint2 5y ago
  The regulations would address those issues as well.

This is why regulations are sometimes the sole feasible option.

by mint2 5y ago

This is why regulations are sometimes the sole feasible option.

You don't want regulation forcing these things into your properties without also some way of containing their fires and their fumes (which are highly toxic).

wing-_-nuts 5y ago
Why are you more concerned about EV fires when gas fires have been a thing for the past century? We had a parked car go up in flames at work and nobody was calling for the company to ban ice cars.
- busterarm 5y ago
  Parked ICE cars _rarely_ catch fire just sitting parked. When they do it's usually electrical system issues that started a larger fire (I'm looking at you, VW, Audi). Battery fires commonly occur while at rest. More importantly, they can't be put out (and are accelerated) by common indoor sprinkler systems and the toxic fumes will keep you from getting close enough to use a Class D extinguisher anyway. Much unlike ICE cars. Additionally, lithium batteries burn at 1000+ degrees vs gas fires which burn at hundreds and batteries tend to EXPLODE, whereas gas just burns unless the fire starts from inside the pressurized tank (which is virtually impossible).
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
    EV cars rarely catch fire also? If I'm mistaken, and EV fires are endemic or something, please post a source that lays out the fire rates between ev and ice cars. I think banning them is a stupid, ignorant solution in search of a problem, and I don't own one, nor will I for the foreseeable future. Edit: study here: https://www.autoinsuranceez.com/gas-vs-electric-car-fires/ https://www.autoinsuranceez.com/gas-vs-electric-car-fires/
    - busterarm 5y ago
      They rarely catch fire, but ICE cars catching fire while parked is even more rare. Plus EV fires are significantly more catastrophic. I also think banning EVs would be stupid, but we need to be serious about having the proper infrastructure to support them and nobody is talking about it. I don't want an EV within 50 yards of my house or really any other indoor structure. They should be required to be parked outdoors and with a minimum distance to other property. EVs are being pushed on us without any regard to their impracticality wrt property damage. I think they have great potential for shared vehicle programs, "self-driving" and public transit applications. As my personal daily? You're crazy.
      - brianwawok 5y ago
        You make a lot of bold claims with no evidence. Good thing I guess that you don't get to dictate federal policy, which is moving in the opposite direction.
        busterarm 5y ago
        https://www.wsbtv.com/news/georgia/experts-warn-firefighters-need-be-better-prepared-electric-vehicle-fires-become-more-common/ZHKNVLIVQ5HUNEI45XF4TT3QUY/ https://www.wsbtv.com/news/georgia/experts-warn-firefighters... “We carry 500 to 1000 gallons of water on all of our fire engines. And usually that’s plenty enough water to extinguish your typical internal combustion car fire,” Buck said. But where a normal car fire takes about 500 gallons of water, essentially 1 truckload, this fire took 28,000 gallons. That’s the equivalent of 56 fire trucks. In this case, there was a hydrant nearby. But without that, firefighters would have had to shuttle in water. “As it ended up, we were there for four hours putting water on the car and we continue to have what’s called thermal runaway with the battery packs,” Buck said. Thermal runaway is what happens when different battery cells under the car keep igniting. That’s a basic difference too. Water needs to get underneath the car where the battery cells are located. Firefighters in the Netherlands even tried using a crane to dunk a BMW hybrid in a pool of water to stop the thermal runaway and put out the fire. It's also worth noting that hybrid vehicles actually catch fire at a higher rate than ICE cars...It's likely that plug-in electric hybrids are being counted in hybrid fire statistics instead of EV.
mint2 5y ago
The regulations would address those issues as well.