4 ms·
And gasoline fires and high speed collisions aren't? This is the bit of paranoia around EV deployment that I genuinely fail to understand. Personal vehicles a
by ajross 3mo ago
And gasoline fires and high speed collisions aren't? This is the bit of paranoia around EV deployment that I genuinely fail to understand. Personal vehicles are by far the most dangerous apparatus with which we interact, already. And we're fine with it! Have you ever, even once, called a Civic or Vespa "scary"?
But put a battery in it suddenly they need new tech before you'll be comfortable?
- AndrewDucker 3mo agoIt's not just vehicles. Battery fires from electric bikes and scooters have also caused issues. And currently you can't put a battery pack into plane hold luggage because of fire risks.
- willismichael 3mo agoElectric bikes and scooters are also vehicles, right?
- ajross 3mo agoHow much more likely are you to be injured on an eBike vs. getting run over on a Schwinn, though? Have you ever been afraid of the bike? The presence of a different failure mode isn't the question at issue. Yes, they're new tech and require new techniques. Duh, as it were. It's your abject and frankly irrational paranoia that I'm calling out. Chill the fuck out, as it were. Moving things have always been dangerous, and if you believe this represents a change in aggregate risk you are simply wrong.
- coldtea 3mo ago>How much more likely are you to be injured on an eBike vs. getting run over on a Schwinn, though? Have you ever been afraid of the bike? Many rightly are.
- jerf 3mo agoAsk your local fire department about putting fires out in battery-powered cars versus gasoline cars. Yes, there is a qualitative difference and it's not in favor of the battery-powered cars. That's not to say that it's a stopper for them; it's just part of the cost/benefits analysis. The idea of technologies that are better on all parts of the cost/benefit analysis at once is a science fiction or video game concept. In the real world there's always a mixture of positives and negatives between two different technologies.
- red75prime 3mo agoIf I'm not mistaken, a lithium battery grid-level energy storage firefighting protocol is "evacuate people and let it burn."
- ajross 3mo agoSame protocol for a burning pile of tires at your favorite bumrocks exurban service station, amusingly. Yet no one loses their shit on HN about that horrifyingly dangerous technology. I give up. This is a proxy war for something else. No one seriously is scared of batteries in the way people here keep trying to justify.
- red75prime 3mo agoWhy so sensitive? There are other battery chemistries (say, VRFB) that are less dangerous and that are less like tire fire.
- coldtea 3mo ago>And gasoline fires and high speed collisions aren't? Gasoline car fires are quite rarer in modern cars (don't know about the 1950s), and easier to put off than battery car fires. And people are already afraid of high speed collisions, plus they are orthogonal of the energy technology used. >Personal vehicles are by far the most dangerous apparatus with which we interact, already. And under what framing does it make sense to use the above to argue in favor of adding a dangerous battery tech to them is thus not problematic?
- dgacmu 3mo agoYou seem to be turning this into a discussion of vehicles, but the post you're replying to was purely about batteries. I get it - ICE cars suck. But speaking for myself, I waited until I could get LFP batteries before adding a lot of lithium to my house. I deemed the fire risk of NMC not worth the benefits. I now have about 15kWh of LFP and I'm happy as a clam.