Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
39 minutes ago, sometimewoodworker said:

 

I am just watching this video. The guy explains what's going on and he does it in an entertaining way. Great video. Thanks 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I am just watching this video. The guy explains what's going on and he does it in an entertaining way. Great video. Thanks 

Thanks 

 

I haven’t brought up the fact that switching to EVs, while they maybe a great choice for an individual owner as long as they are treated with the respect that is vital to not becoming a marshmallow in your own burning property, are totally meaningless in the reduction of greenhouse gas production. Yes they may fractionally reduce the amount produced by a vehicle owner but you have to do a whole life analysis to find the small amount saved

 

anyway here are a few more educational videos. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by sometimewoodworker
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 2
  • Thanks 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Bandersnatch said:

If you are going to post sweeping statements like this without any supporting research nobody is going to take what you say seriously.

 

An anti EV YouTuber is not supporting research 


https://www.kbb.com/car-news/study-electric-vehicles-involved-in-fewest-car-fires/
 

You haven’t done your homework. You should really understand the actual risks and inherent problems 

 

He is not remotely anti EV. He has owned an EV for a significant time and makes the point that they are a good choice for some owners.

 

The vast majority of EVs are young so it is natural that there will be fewer fires per 100,000 vehicles sold, they are almost all in the more expensive end of the market, making the numbers smaller again. 
 

His points are that for the vehicles that catch fire the risks are very significantly higher and virtually no fire service has been trained for them, that little to no thought has been involved in the citing of EV, charging points in multistorey car parks, as if there is a fire, it’s not going to be put out by the regular firefighting equipment vehicles which mostly contain petrol or diesel are going to make a multi story car park fire a huge disaster. 

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

They can't smother an EV fire, as it has its own oxygen supply in the battery chemistry.

And that doesn’t even begin to be the problem as the energy density is also high.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, sometimewoodworker said:

And that doesn’t even begin to be the problem as the energy density is also high.

And getting higher, as vehicle manufacturers try to eliminate range anxiety.

  • Like 2
Posted
9 minutes ago, MJCM said:

Original Post withdrawn

 

@ExpatOilWorker

 

Why people would buy such a contraption is beyond me. Guess it has to do with the "Selfie" generation :thumbsup:

It is an Asian thing, aka Chinese. You see grown up people riding around on them on the Skywalk in Bangkok. Nuts!!

  • Haha 1
Posted

There is one point that I didn’t mention and that is, if you see an EV fire DO NOT approach it unless you have proper breathing protection as the byproducts include gaseous dangerously corrosive acids and poisonous vapours, so unless you want a potentially short, excruciating and deadly visit to an intensive care unit, go upwind and as far away as you can.

This is a case where trying to help is  potentially a death sentence 

 

Here is why you don’t park or charge EVs in your enclosed garage 

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Just wait until one of these rideable suitcase take down an airliner and a couple of hundred innocent souls.

 

Screenshot_20230927_161622_Shopee.jpg

Screenshot_20230927_161924_Gallery.jpg

What's the difference between that and a powerbank, laptop or anything else with a battery? Why is it a higher risk?

Edited by eisfeld
  • Like 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, Bandersnatch said:

Post a video of his to support that statement.

If he were anti EV he wouldn’t produce a video like this

 

he is just not stupid and doesn’t mince words

Posted
2 minutes ago, sometimewoodworker said:

It’s a check in bag!!!

You can put laptops in check-in luggage. Anyways, this is getting off-topic.

  • Haha 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

What's the difference between that and a powerbank, laptop or anything else with a battery? Why is it a higher risk?

In my view it is price, size and brand.

A no-name, cheap suitcase, with zero safety features and a large battery is way more risky than a brand name laptop battery. 

Cheap powerbanks are dangerous, but at lease airlines have size limits.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

Very true as even some iPhones or iWatches from Apple have burst.

Why just post about Apple? other manufactures also had their issues

 

 

Edited by MJCM
  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, MJCM said:

Why just post about Apple? other manufactures also had their issues

I read "even some iPhones or iWatches from Apple have burst" as something along the lines of "even some of the best can have failures" rather than "Apple is one of the worst for failures".

 

In other words, it was a positive for Apple. As someone who doesn't eat Apples, I didn't find that easy to write.

Posted
56 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

What's the difference between that and a powerbank, laptop or anything else with a battery? Why is it a higher risk?

It's about the amount of stored energy available to support a fire.

A typical household powerwall is about 5 kWhr. Teslas run to 85 kWhr. That's a lot of stored energy.

 

Size matters.

  • Haha 2
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...