That first video looks like it would be wonderful for the environment.

quote:

Originally posted by Expert308:
The reason you don't see the media and government calling for restrictions, or even saying "Hey, let's take a step back and think about this", is because it would be contrary to the agenda and its associated narrative. Just force them on everyone ASAP, and we'll work out the problems later.

100% Typical government. Ready fire aim.

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:

quote:

Originally posted by 1s1k:
Believe it or not ICE car fires happen way more often than EV fires. The issue is ICE fires are usually older cars with deferred maintenance.

The problem with EV fires is most of them happen when charging which for many would mean you lose your house as well.

Electric vehicles fires are far more intense and depending upon where the vehicle is when it starts spreads extremely rapidly to anything nearby. In addition they are very hard to extinguish and the burn off is extremely toxic. These are Chinese buses and these guys are supposedly leading the technology and manufacture all the batteries.

This has nothing to do with green and everything to do with limiting movement of the populace.

[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/T71cVhxG_v4" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

I’m probably more versed on lithium batteries than most. I’ve been using them for more than 20 years and have seen my share of fires with them. I only stated that ICE fires happen more often than EV fires which is a basic fact. I also mentioned that an EV fire is much more likely to happen when charging which could very likely take your house with it, which is obviously more serious.

quote:

an EV fire is much more likely to happen when charging which could very likely take your house and your family with it,

A total of 278,063,737 personal and commercial vehicles were registered to drivers in the U.S. in 2021.

Naturally the total fires in ICE vehicles is going to be greater, simply a reflection of the volume.

EV sales in 2020 - 308,000, 2021 - 600,000 Estimates that 2.5 million ev's on the road.

ICE fires are usually not due to anything in the fuel system. They are caused by electrical shorts. Ford had faulty ignition switches that would short and cause a fire. Saw one myself in a neighbor's car 20-something years ago. Others have had similar problems. Emptying a home-size fire extinguisher on it seemed to work until it ran out and the fire flared up. Had to get the hood open and disconnect the battery to stop it.

When you see a car burning at the side of the road, or burned out already, it is usually an older car. There aren't really any "older" EV's out there, so the fires are all relatively new cars. And such fires almost NEVER get into the fuel tank and cause an explosion because of the way the fuel system is check-valved.

High school science class should teach you what happens when you put sodium, lithium, or other alkali metals in water. Firetrucks have water, so that's what they use. It will be a long time before they convert to the appropriate type of liquid/foam.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
High school science class should teach you what happens when you put sodium, lithium, or other alkali metals in water. Firetrucks have water, so that's what they use. It will be a long time before they convert to the appropriate type of liquid/foam.

Swiftly followed by this gem:

AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit
Firefighting Foam (AFFF) Class Action Lawsuit

Aqueous film-forming foam (“AFFF”) is used to extinguish fires and is commonly referred to as firefighting foam. It was recently discovered that prolonged use or exposure to certain chemicals in AFFF firefighting foam can cause cancer. Anyone regularly exposed to firefighting foam and subsequently diagnosed with kidney, pancreatic, prostate, or testicular cancer may be able to file an AFFF firefighting foam lawsuit and get financial compensation.

All AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits in federal courts have been consolidated into a “class action” MDL in the District of South Carolina. As of August 2022, over 2,500 plaintiffs with firefighting foam cancer lawsuits are pending in the AFFF MDL. After bellwether test trials, the AFFF class action MDL will hopefully end in a global settlement.
AFFF Firefighting Foam Causes Cancer

AFFF (“aqueous film-forming foam”) is a sprayable foam specifically designed to extinguish high-intensity fires fueled by accelerants such as gasoline. The active chemicals in AFFF firefighting foam belong to a family of chemicals known as PFAS (poly-fluoroalkyl substances).

PFAS are a unique group of chemicals that are highly resistant to extreme heat and are not broken down by oil or water. Unfortunately, the indestructible nature of PFAS means that they do not biodegrade or break down in the environment. PFAS tends to move through soil and end up contaminating groundwater and rivers. For this reason, PFAS are often referred to as “forever chemicals.”

Over the last decade, an emerging body of scientific research has established that chronic exposure to PFAS in firefighting foam can cause certain types of cancer. The Environmental Protection Agency published a health advisory in 2016 noting that animal studies showed that prolonged exposure to PFAS resulted in kidney and testicular cancer.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) conducted several studies which found that human exposure to PFAS results in a significantly increased kidney, prostate, and testicular cancer rate.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Cancer Society have reached the same conclusion, listing the chemicals in AFFF firefighting foam as human carcinogens.
Exposure to AFFF Firefighting Foam and PFAS

Anyone regularly exposed to AFFF firefighting foam over long periods is potentially at risk of developing cancer from PFAS. Chronic exposure to PFAS in AFFF firefighting foam can occur in two ways: (1) occupational exposure to AFFF and (2) PFAS contamination in drinking water.

Occupational AFFF Exposure

Individuals who worked in specific jobs or professions where AFFF firefighting foam was regularly used (either by themselves directly or by people around them) have what is considered “occupational exposure” to PFAS from firefighting foam. Firefighters who regularly used AFFF or conducted training exercises with AFFF firefighting foam are the most obvious example of individuals with occupational exposure.

Other examples of individuals with occupational exposure to AFFF firefighting foam include those working at locations where AFFF was used, disposed of, or manufactured. For instance, commercial airports, military bases, and industrial facilities regularly used firefighting foam during training exercises. Anyone who worked at these facilities may have been exposed to PFAS through indirect contact.

https://www.lawsuit-informatio...ng-foam-lawsuit.html

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

A total of 278,063,737 personal and commercial vehicles were registered to drivers in the U.S. in 2021.

Naturally the total fires in ICE vehicles is going to be greater, simply a reflection of the volume.

EV sales in 2020 - 308,000, 2021 - 600,000 Estimates that 2.5 million ev's on the road.

Has nothing to do with it.

ICE vehicles caught fire at 1,530 incidents per 100,000 vehicles. EV fires were 25 fires per 100,000 vehicles.

quote:

Originally posted by 1s1k:

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

A total of 278,063,737 personal and commercial vehicles were registered to drivers in the U.S. in 2021.

Naturally the total fires in ICE vehicles is going to be greater, simply a reflection of the volume.

EV sales in 2020 - 308,000, 2021 - 600,000 Estimates that 2.5 million ev's on the road.

Has nothing to do with it.

ICE vehicles caught fire at 1,530 incidents per 100,000 vehicles. EV fires were 25 fires per 100,000 vehicles.

My golly, if you take that 1,530 incidents per 100k vehicles and multiply it by the number of ICE vehicles on the road divided by 100k, that is several metric truckloads, nay, several metric boatloads of vehicle fires. Color me skeptical.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
ICE fires are usually not due to anything in the fuel system. They are caused by electrical shorts. Ford had faulty ignition switches that would short and cause a fire. Saw one myself in a neighbor's car 20-something years ago. Others have had similar problems. Emptying a home-size fire extinguisher on it seemed to work until it ran out and the fire flared up. Had to get the hood open and disconnect the battery to stop it.

When you see a car burning at the side of the road, or burned out already, it is usually an older car. There aren't really any "older" EV's out there, so the fires are all relatively new cars. And such fires almost NEVER get into the fuel tank and cause an explosion because of the way the fuel system is check-valved.

High school science class should teach you what happens when you put sodium, lithium, or other alkali metals in water. Firetrucks have water, so that's what they use. It will be a long time before they convert to the appropriate type of liquid/foam.

Yes, and EV's will be susceptible to those issues as the vehicle ages out as well.

quote:

Originally posted by sgalczyn:

AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit
Firefighting Foam (AFFF) Class Action Lawsuit

Aqueous film-forming foam (“AFFF”) is used to extinguish fires and is commonly referred to as firefighting foam. It was recently discovered that prolonged use or exposure to certain chemicals in AFFF firefighting foam can cause cancer. Anyone regularly exposed to firefighting foam and subsequently diagnosed with kidney, pancreatic, prostate, or testicular cancer may be able to file an AFFF firefighting foam lawsuit and get financial compensation.

Ah hell. We carry a ton of that crap onboard the ship. Thankfully we don't use it very often.

quote:

Originally posted by sgalczyn:

PFAS are a unique group of chemicals that are highly resistant to extreme heat and are not broken down by oil or water. Unfortunately, the indestructible nature of PFAS means that they do not biodegrade or break down in the environment. PFAS tends to move through soil and end up contaminating groundwater and rivers. For this reason, PFAS are often referred to as “forever chemicals.”

Over the last decade, an emerging body of scientific research has established that chronic exposure to PFAS in firefighting foam can cause certain types of cancer. The Environmental Protection Agency published a health advisory in 2016 noting that animal studies showed that prolonged exposure to PFAS resulted in kidney and testicular cancer.

PFAS are used in ski wax. There are alternatives that work just as well, but I guess people just don't care. It has been banned but enough people are still using it that it is detectable in the snow at the local resort. It ends up in our drinking water supply eventually.

quote:

ICE vehicles caught fire at 1,530 incidents per 100,000 vehicles. EV fires were 25 fires per 100,000 vehicles.

I realize that is a fact, which has a lot to do with the fact that there are tens of millions of ICE vehicles on the road, and not all of those fires are due to mechanical failures. I fought more than my fair share of vehicle fires back in the day and saw about every different cause you can imagine. I've even had vehicles drive away from me while on fire.

My issue is with the fact that a normal ICE vehicle fire can be put out with less than the 500gal on the apparatus or with an extinguisher. These take tens of thousands of gallons to extinguish and it's no guarantee it's out. They often start again days later. These are not a simple extension of an existing hazard.

Do the ICE fires include those set alight in "peaceful demonstrations"? How many occur spontaneously parked in a garage? How many are the result of an accident?

flashguy

Waiting for the car insurance companies to dramaticly increase the premiums on EV vehicles due to loss during a electrical fire while charging or even a accident on the roadway that caused minor damage..... Or even homeowners insurance raising rates especially if being charged in garage or under a carport....Just a matter of time. ................................ drill sgt.

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:

quote:

ICE vehicles caught fire at 1,530 incidents per 100,000 vehicles. EV fires were 25 fires per 100,000 vehicles.

I realize that is a fact, which has a lot to do with the fact that there are tens of millions of ICE vehicles on the road, and not all of those fires are due to mechanical failures. I fought more than my fair share of vehicle fires back in the day and saw about every different cause you can imagine. I've even had vehicles drive away from me while on fire.

My issue is with the fact that a normal ICE vehicle fire can be put out with less than the 500gal on the apparatus or with an extinguisher. These take tens of thousands of gallons to extinguish and it's no guarantee it's out. They often start again days later. These are not a simple extension of an existing hazard.

I’m 100% with you on that. The intensity and the likelyhood of it happening while it’s charging is enough to scare the crud out of me. In fact enough where I’m sitting on the sidelines for a couple years before I would consider one.

I crashed an RC helicopter several years ago and the battery was about the size of a brick and the fire it created was unbelievable.

So when an EV gets in a crash and skids off the road, do they have to remove the topsoil when it becomes contaminated by the electrolytes?

I've seen this happen twice on DOT right-of-ways and private property (both occurrences were on state highways). Seems to be 10-12 inches for areas it skid across and several feet for where it came to a rest.

Not sure if this is a local policy or standard procedure everywhere?

Lithium ion batteries were initially used in commercial aircraft due to the “glass cockpits” needing batteries and lead acid batteries being heavier than the equivalent lithium ion batteries. Unfortunately the lithium ion batteries produce thick clouds of smoke in the cockpit when they burn. The planes have been redesigned to address the use of the Lithium ion batteries, since weight is king on planes. This is from a friend with an aero engineering degree and about forty years in the industry.

My brother spent some years in the retail battery business, and whenever someone brought in a lithium ion battery that was damaged or dead, they would put it in the back parking lot as far from anything else as possible, as their experience was spontaneous combustion was likely.

Lastly, I have some friends down in Fort Meyers, and after the last hurricane they had over 20 EVs, mostly Teslas, catch fire due to immersion in flood waters. They aren’t sure if it is just exposure to salt water or debris in the flood waters damaging the batteries allowing salt water incursion, but the fire department has adopted a policy of letting them burn and keeping nearby vehicles and structures from catching fire, as thousands of gallons of water are needed to put them out. I heard a story that one FD submerged one in a flooded retention pond to put it out, but that may not be true.

As far as the ICE cars having a higher rate, let’s compare ICE vehicles under 5 years old to EVs under 5 years old to get an apples to apples comparison. I couldn’t find such a breakdown. Interestingly, I did find that hybrid vehicles had a higher rate of fires than ICE and EV combined.

quote:

Originally posted by Nuclear:
Lithium ion batteries were initially used in commercial aircraft due to the “glass cockpits” needing batteries and lead acid batteries being heavier than the equivalent lithium ion batteries. Unfortunately the lithium ion batteries produce thick clouds of smoke in the cockpit when they burn. The planes have been redesigned to address the use of the Lithium ion batteries, since weight is king on planes. This is from a friend with an aero engineering degree and about forty years in the industry.

I flew a turboprop airliner years ago that had 2 NiCd batteries rather than lead acid. Due to possibility of thermal runaway, the battery bays were in the underside of the fuselage with a meltable mechanical tray mechanism. In case of overheat, the battery would fall out of the airplane! The theory was the risk to people on the ground was less than to an airplane full of people on fire.

To my knowledge no such event ever happened.

Today's airline pilot's biggest fear is a battery fire in the cargo bay. The halon fire extinguishing system will not do anything to snuff it out.

I keep all the batteries for my tools in 2 different metal ammo cans in the garage. The only better not in an ammo can is the one to power my impact driver, which I keep in my truck tool box with the impact driver.

Not exactly
Believe it or not ICE car fires happen way more often than EV fires.

Per study published in the Detroit News. Normalized per miles drive ICE & EV's have the same frequency. Given that EVs are a very small percentage of the vehicles on the road today, one might suspect EV's burn less frequently.

The big difference is what is required to extinguish an EV fire. An ice fire requires a couple hundred gallons of water. Popular fire extinguishers work. An EV fires require thousands of gallons. You can't actually put it out. You can only try to keep it cool.
Big difference

The problem with EV fires is most of them happen when charging which for many would mean you lose your house as well.[/QUOTE]