ICE vs EV, the debate thread

[sungod]

6 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Like I said, prove me wrong and I’ll apologize otherwise I’m calling your claim BS

Your credibility is blown already, you've already replied and watched it (apparently)

 

Up to you to prove you aren't the one full of BS. I have nothing to prove......m'lud

[BenStark]

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

Except the statistics say the prevalence is 60x more fires in ICE cars.

 

I can’t find your video, please post a link

Maybe that is because there are 150 tmes more ICE than EV cars

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, BenStark said:

Maybe that is because there are 150 tmes more ICE than EV cars

the 60X stat is claims paid for ICEV fires, and that is a per 100k stat (link posted a few times already).  150X more cars, simply would mean 150X those same 60X.

 

If you are correct, that's a lot of ICEV fires.  Scary stuff indeed.  I'm still waiting for the news-blip of that 1 LFP battery powered EV that had a fire, and apparently, that hasn't flamed up yet.

 

.... I'll wait.

Edited August 4, 2023 by KhunLA

[Lacessit]

9 hours ago, transam said:

Yep, Mr. MG's vid was probably taken at a disused airfield.........????

It's a good example of experimental design formulated to give a favorable result. The fire blanket works in an airfield or whatever. In real life, in a confined space, it would be as useless as tits on a bull. Advertising spin.

It reminds me of a pharmaceutical company testing a product on mice for teratogenic properties. The company reported the mice were born "visually impaired".

What actually happened - the mice were born without eyes.

[Lacessit]

9 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

We should all be considerate and polite, just because I was impolite too, it doesn’t make it right.

So you have been impolite twice, and I have been impolite once. I suppose that works for you.

[JBChiangRai]

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

It's a good example of experimental design formulated to give a favorable result. The fire blanket works in an airfield or whatever. In real life, in a confined space, it would be as useless as tits on a bull. Advertising spin.

It reminds me of a pharmaceutical company testing a product on mice for teratogenic properties. The company reported the mice were born "visually impaired".

What actually happened - the mice were born without eyes.

I think you missed an important point.

 

The experiment was performed with 1 cell, on all sides it was cool.

 

To be a more accurate test, it should have had cells on either side, to see whether one cell damaged could cause thermal runaway in the others. 

 

On the issue of me being impolite twice, two wrongs do make a right?

[Lacessit]

18 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

I think you missed an important point.

 

The experiment was performed with 1 cell, on all sides it was cool.

 

To be a more accurate test, it should have had cells on either side, to see whether one cell damaged could cause thermal runaway in the others. 

 

On the issue of me being impolite twice, two wrongs do make a right?

The temperature, according to the video, reached 900 C. That's red hot. IMO containing the heat under a blanket of a thermal runaway would be a foregone conclusion for initiating thermal runaway or gasoline explosions in adjacent vehicles. The blanket would actually make things worse.

Heat up any rechargeable battery to 900 C, and see what happens. Stand well back when you do.

The point on the impolite issue - I was directing the comment at another poster, not you. OTOH, you chose to butt in with the Prince Charming post after said comment. Score is actually 2 - 0. I have yet to see you admit you were wrong with the "nonsense" post.

Edited August 5, 2023 by Lacessit

[JBChiangRai]

7 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I have yet to see you admit you were wrong with the "nonsense" post.

When I am wrong, I will readily admit it.

 

The last time I was wrong was when I proposed to my (ex) wife.

[JBChiangRai]

15 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I have yet to see you admit you were wrong with the "nonsense" post.

I only watched the video up to the first incorrect statement, at that point, I stopped, because if he’s going to make incorrect claims, then there’s no point watching the rest of it.

 

I’ve watched a few videos from that guy in the past, and they are usually rants about something. 
 

His incorrect statement was claiming that the Fremantle ship that caught fire was due to an EV fire. That statement came from the Coastguard, and it was later retracted as an opinion, not fact, there is zero evidence of that fire coming from an EV.

[observer90210]

EV will rule and dominate,  obvisously no doubt.

 

But not for today neither tomorrow.

 

In the meantine, until the lithium battery tech improuves,  HEV is the best choice even in many european regions.

 

Also who says EV all over, means nuclear power plants all over in the future.

 

How can solely solar or other "sustainable" and current trends of green-clean energy,  entertain the huge needs of an all EV society  ?

[JBChiangRai]

2 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

EV will rule and dominate,  obvisously no doubt.

 

But not for today neither tomorrow.

 

In the meantine, until the lithium battery tech improuves,  HEV is the best choice even in many european regions.

 

Also who says EV all over, means nuclear power plants all over in the future.

 

How can solely solar or other "sustainable" and current trends of green-clean energy,  entertain the huge needs of an all EV society  ?

HEV & PHEV are a better solution for some people, typically people traveling huge distances every day ie business.  Those of us with abundant leisure time can still easily travel those huge distances in an EV.  Yes you are going to be worried about this until you actually try it, I was until I did it, but it is perfectly feasible in Thailand today.

 

Battery technology is going to continue to improve. I just hope the usual cycle of discovery to production of 10 to 25 years can be significantly improved.

 

As for solar power, I would like to see it mandated that all new-builds must have solar panels on the roof to achieve net zero or 100% roof coverage which ever comes first. 

[observer90210]

Obvisouly,  who will say No to free electricity from the sun ?

 

But again, it get's scary when you see here and there,  those roof solar pannels catching fire and burning down the roof and the house. Of course, it all will improve,  definately......but in the meantime....

[JBChiangRai]

7 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

Obvisouly,  who will say No to free electricity from the sun ?

 

But again, it get's scary when you see here and there,  those roof solar pannels catching fire and burning down the roof and the house. Of course, it all will improve,  definately......but in the meantime....

I think you are confusing batteries with solar panels, solar panels are not flammable, it’s the batteries that catch fire, albeit extremely rarely.

[observer90210]

2 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

I think you are confusing batteries with solar panels, solar panels are not flammable, it’s the batteries that catch fire, albeit extremely rarely.

I think you got a bit mixed up as the initial quoted response was in regard to your previous mention of solar pannels being mandatory.

 

But to get back to solar, there are solar panels that have caught fire on rooftops and of course internet can answer and confirm that far better then myself.

Edited August 5, 2023 by observer90210

[JBChiangRai]

1 minute ago, observer90210 said:

I think you got a bit mixed up as the initial quoted response was in regard to your previous mention of solar pannels being mandatory.

Ok, but solar panels don’t readily catch fire, they are mostly aluminium and glass. I can’t see either of those catching fire on a roof, melting maybe.

 

There is an issue with mandating solar panels on new builds. There is already an issue with the power grid becoming unstable through too much solar power production in parts of Australia.  It’s not unsolvable, but it needs addressing.

 

When you have solar power, and an EV, your motoring becomes extremely cheap.

[observer90210]

 

 

5 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Ok, but solar panels don’t readily catch fire, they are mostly aluminium and glass. I can’t see either of those catching fire on a roof, melting maybe.

 

There is an issue with mandating solar panels on new builds. There is already an issue with the power grid becoming unstable through too much solar power production in parts of Australia.  It’s not unsolvable, but it needs addressing.

 

When you have solar power, and an EV, your motoring becomes extremely cheap.

Solar panel installations on rooftops do catch fire and of course there are sufficent feeds on Google that can give you an idea, what it's about.

[JBChiangRai]

1 minute ago, observer90210 said:

 

 

Solar panel installations on rooftops do catch fire and of course there are sufficent feeds on Google that can give you an idea, what it's about.

I have done some research, I think we are talking at cross purposes.

 

Solar panels do not catch fire, installations of solar panels, catch fire, but it appears to be the wiring or the electronics, never the solar panels themselves.

[observer90210]

3 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

I have done some research, I think we are talking at cross purposes.

 

Solar panels do not catch fire, installations of solar panels, catch fire, but it appears to be the wiring or the electronics, never the solar panels themselves.

Comes to the same when it burns you know...

[KhunLA]

13 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

 

 

Solar panel installations on rooftops do catch fire and of course there are sufficent feeds on Google that can give you an idea, what it's about.

Just when you thought the discussion couldn't get any sillier ...

... now solar panels catching on fire ????

 

That would be some really poor installation and not up to code obviously.  DIY'er which didn't do their research.

 

I was a Chimney Sweep, and had to report a few home owners to the Fire Dept to tag their fireplace or wood stoves for poor installation or lack of maintenance, once coated with creosote slag.  Simply my responsibility to do so, and helps avoid law suits for not.  Hard to believe how irresponsible people were with their family's lives.  Some were damn scary and accidents waiting to happen.

 

I'm sure the same happens with so many electrical installation, whether solar or other DIY projects.  I little bit of knowledge can be extremely dangerous.

Edited August 5, 2023 by KhunLA

[sungod]

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

When I am wrong, I will readily admit it.

 

 

I'm still waiting

[Lacessit]

55 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

I only watched the video up to the first incorrect statement, at that point, I stopped, because if he’s going to make incorrect claims, then there’s no point watching the rest of it.

 

I’ve watched a few videos from that guy in the past, and they are usually rants about something. 
 

His incorrect statement was claiming that the Fremantle ship that caught fire was due to an EV fire. That statement came from the Coastguard, and it was later retracted as an opinion, not fact, there is zero evidence of that fire coming from an EV.

John Cadogan rants about everything. That is his style of presentation. Underneath that is solid engineering and physics.

The Fremantle fire is an example of probabilities and logic. Look at the number of shipboard fires arising from transporting vehicles that are solely fuelled by gasoline and diesel. Then look at the ignition temperature of said fuels, about 210 C. It takes an external heat source to get a fire going. It only takes a short circuit for an EV to go into thermal runaway.

OTOH, there are now two shipboard fires where a mix of EV's and ICE's were being transported. The greater intensity of EV fires is undeniable.

On balance of probability, it is almost certain both fires were started by EV's, as the ship's crew could have contained an ICE fire with foam, powder or water. As explained, EV fires supply their own fuel and oxygen.

Occam's razor.

 

[JBChiangRai]

13 minutes ago, sungod said:

I'm still waiting

Probably because I’m not wrong? 

[JBChiangRai]

4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The Fremantle fire is an example of probabilities and logic. Look at the number of shipboard fires arising from transporting vehicles that are solely fuelled by gasoline and diesel. Then look at the ignition temperature of said fuels, about 210 C. It takes an external heat source to get a fire going. It only takes a short circuit for an EV to go into thermal runaway.

OTOH, there are now two shipboard fires where a mix of EV's and ICE's were being transported. The greater intensity of EV fires is undeniable.

On balance of probability, it is almost certain both fires were started by EV's, as the ship's crew could have contained an ICE fire with foam, powder or water. As explained, EV fires supply their own fuel and oxygen.

Occam's razor.

 

If he had said that, I would have continued watching it.  He simply stated some thing as fact when it’s not

 

If you want to debate the likelihood of that fire, being an EV, that’s another issue, we might have the same opinion, but it’s not a fact, not yet anyway.

Edited August 5, 2023 by JBChiangRai

[sungod]

2 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Probably because I’m not wrong? 

 

 

you are, proven already but you have selective memory.

[JBChiangRai]

1 minute ago, sungod said:

 

 

you are, proven already but you have selective memory.

You haven’t provided one iota of proof that EV fires have the same prevalence as ICE fires, I’ve done some research and I cannot find anything to back up your claim. That’s why I called it BS.

[sungod]

1 minute ago, JBChiangRai said:

You haven’t provided one iota of proof that EV fires have the same prevalence as ICE fires, I’ve done some research and I cannot find anything to back up your claim. That’s why I called it BS.

I posted a video you have already replied to....duh!

 

Really no point engaging with you any longer.........

[JBChiangRai]

6 minutes ago, sungod said:

I posted a video you have already replied to....duh!

 

Really no point engaging with you any longer.........

The point is, I don’t believe that video made that claim, YOU did, but I don’t believe it was said in that video, and if it was, it’s unsubstantiated and clearly false.

[sungod]

2 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

The point is, I don’t believe that video made that claim, YOU did, but I don’t believe it was said in that video, and if it was, it’s unsubstantiated and clearly false.

bye

[JBChiangRai]

7 minutes ago, sungod said:

bye

Bye… until the next time you troll me, which I suspect won’t be very long.

[Lacessit]

25 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

If he had said that, I would have continued watching it.  He simply stated some thing as fact when it’s not

 

If you want to debate the likelihood of that fire, being an EV, that’s another issue, we might have the same opinion, but it’s not a fact, not yet anyway.

You can bet your left nut marine insurance companies are watching mixed EV/ICE shipments very closely. As Ian Fleming wrote, once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time it is enemy action.

Packing a mix of said vehicles like sardines is looking more and more risky, in the light of videos showing EV fires. It would not surprise me if insurers either hiked their premiums, or refused insurance unless suitable isolation of EV's is adopted.

Either way, that cost gets passed on to the car buyer.