Tesla

[Wally Fairway 5,490]

2 hours ago, troph said:

@royiv

had a 30 min repair (covered by warranty) before our CO road trip… my review was 5 stars on operations… recommend Tesla? 
 

 

Elmo gonna disable your ride there cuz 

[The Royal We 3,051]

13 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

Elmo gonna disable your ride there cuz 

I was about to say the same thing. Sorry about your reduced range friend-o.

[tokamak 6,323]

Are Tesla vehicles still the "best" EVs in 2024? I realize this is the Tesla thread, not the EV thread. I may be in this market relatively soon but haven't done a lot of research yet. My impression was that others have caught up. Ioniq 6 looks really nice to me.

[Dahobbs 17,180]

10 minutes ago, tokamak said:

Are Tesla vehicles still the "best" EVs in 2024? I realize this is the Tesla thread, not the EV thread. I may be in this market relatively soon but haven't done a lot of research yet. My impression was that others have caught up. Ioniq 6 looks really nice to me.

I wouldn't say the best vehicles, but certainly the most mature and easiest to operate. Now that the Supercharger network is opened up to other manufacturers (you can get an adapter from Ford today), that is changing. Unfortunately, I don't believe there are any adapters for KIA/Genesis yet. Future vehicles will be using the Tesla charging port (now known as the North American Charging Standard or SAE J3400) and will have access to the network. But we don't know how Musk's recent tantrum firing and then mostly rehiring the supercharger team will affect operations moving forward. Me personally, were I in the market to replace my Model 3, I'd probably first look at options from Ford, Kia/Genesis, and then maybe Rivian. VW and GM are also options, but they have both had significant teething issues. I'd definitely consider another Tesla, but frankly I'm concerned Elon is going to run the business into the ground trying to pivot to AI or whatever bullshit he wants to peddle. I have loved my car though. No regrets about the purchase (in early 2020). 

[Biff Tannen 45,013]

21 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I wouldn't say the best vehicles, but certainly the most mature and easiest to operate. Now that the Supercharger network is opened up to other manufacturers (you can get an adapter from Ford today), that is changing. Unfortunately, I don't believe there are any adapters for KIA/Genesis yet. Future vehicles will be using the Tesla charging port (now known as the North American Charging Standard or SAE J3400) and will have access to the network. But we don't know how Musk's recent tantrum firing and then mostly rehiring the supercharger team will affect operations moving forward. Me personally, were I in the market to replace my Model 3, I'd probably first look at options from Ford, Kia/Genesis, and then maybe Rivian. VW and GM are also options, but they have both had significant teething issues. I'd definitely consider another Tesla, but frankly I'm concerned Elon is going to run the business into the ground trying to pivot to AI or whatever bullshit he wants to peddle. I have loved my car though. No regrets about the purchase (in early 2020). 

Agree with all of this.  As I've said before, I think Ford will end up being the big dog in EVs, but Tesla is still cranking out good cars (aside from that truck abortion).  I like Rivian and have heard good things from their owners, but the supercharger network alone makes Tesla the best choice IF you're planning on doing anything other than daily driving.  That said, I only take my Model 3 outside of town maybe 3-4 times a year.

[hornian 5,157]

21 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Agree with all of this.  As I've said before, I think Ford will end up being the big dog in EVs, but Tesla is still cranking out good cars (aside from that truck abortion).  I like Rivian and have heard good things from their owners, but the supercharger network alone makes Tesla the best choice IF you're planning on doing anything other than daily driving.  That said, I only take my Model 3 outside of town maybe 3-4 times a year.

Ford and Rivian now have access to the Supercharger network FWIW. Others will also gain access to it. 

[Biff Tannen 45,013]

1 hour ago, hornian said:

Ford and Rivian now have access to the Supercharger network FWIW. Others will also gain access to it. 

Cool, I didn't know it was already accessible by any non-Teslas.  That is a huge game changer for EVs.  The supercharger network is way more important, imo, than actual Tesla cars.  

[Walte464 450]

1 hour ago, hornian said:

Ford and Rivian now have access to the Supercharger network FWIW. Others will also gain access to it. 

This is only at the newest superchargers, this isn’t all of them.

[Dahobbs 17,180]

33 minutes ago, Walte464 said:

This is only at the newest superchargers, this isn’t all of them.

Yup, only V3 and later model superchargers are compatible (and not all of those yet). But that is a majority of superchargers are this point. Tesla was slowly replacing V2 charging locations with V3. I have no idea what the plan is at the moment. 

Edited June 25 by Dahobbs

[hornian 5,157]

25 minutes ago, Walte464 said:

This is only at the newest superchargers, this isn’t all of them.

Not accurate. 

There are some V4 (I think) Superchargers with adapters built in. Those are called "magic docks".

There are also adapters that are already shipping/shipped to Ford and Rivian owners, and third party adapters, that allow Ford and Rivian to use a Supercharger without the magic dock. I know, because I have one, and have used a supercharger that didn't have the magic dock. Meaning, I can charge at ANY supercharger, not just the magic dock superchargers. And it is plug and play, I don't have to do anything (although to get a cheaper rate, I need to have a Tesla charging account and initiate the charging session before I plug in). 

The issue was getting the Ford/Rivian networks to communicate with the Tesla network for billing purposes, which they have done.  That's what the other manufacturers need to work out. 

The reason is that there are Federal dollars earmarked for EV charging, but they have to have both NACS and CCS. And if nothing else, Elon LOVES him some federal subsidy. 

 

[Mach 1 1,676]

Expect some conflict. I was at a Supercharger recently and a Rivian had to take up two spots, as they charge from the front. I didn't give a shit and struck up a conversation with the owners.  They also had a Tesla but preferred the Rivian as it was more "luxurious". Looked like it.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out if Dipshit doesn't accelerate the Supercharging station team rehiring.  Especially long haul stations where spots are at a premium.

[Biff Tannen 45,013]

5 minutes ago, Mach 1 said:

 Especially long haul stations where spots are at a premium.

This is where the biggest expansion needs to happen. I road tripped in my model 3 from Austin to Santa Barbara and back at the end of 2022 and you basically saw all the same people at each supercharger from junction to needles because all the cars have to stop at the same chargers. I only had to wait for a spot once, but as more EVs come online, it’s going to be an issue. 
 

redundancy is the key.  Gas stations have had 100 years to build out redundancy, so if you need gas, there’s a station pretty much anywhere within a few miles. EV road tripping is tough right now because of what I mentioned above. 

[hornian 5,157]

22 minutes ago, Mach 1 said:

Expect some conflict. I was at a Supercharger recently and a Rivian had to take up two spots, as they charge from the front. I didn't give a shit and struck up a conversation with the owners.  They also had a Tesla but preferred the Rivian as it was more "luxurious". Looked like it.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out if Dipshit doesn't accelerate the Supercharging station team rehiring.  Especially long haul stations where spots are at a premium.

Tesla has actually issued guidance on non-Teslas charging and that's what they reccomend. They are also rolling out chargers with longer charging cords, but honestly the low hanging fruit would be to just re-stripe the parking spots so that the chargers are on the line and not centered in a spot. 

And my wife had a Tesla before her Rivian (we both drive them now) - the Rivian is definitely more luxurious as is, and they just introduced a higher end "Ascent" package for models year 25 that even kicks it up a notch. I don't have any plans to get rid of either of our Rivian any time soon, but assuming they are still around in 5 years, I'll happily buy another one when it's time. And the fact that VW just announced a $5BN investment over the next 5 years (they are going to do a joint venture to build the computer architecture and UI for future EVs together), that is good news for their long-term viability. 

[tokamak 6,323]

4 minutes ago, hornian said:

Tesla has actually issued guidance on non-Teslas charging and that's what they reccomend. They are also rolling out chargers with longer charging cords, but honestly the low hanging fruit would be to just re-stripe the parking spots so that the chargers are on the line and not centered in a spot. 

And my wife had a Tesla before her Rivian (we both drive them now) - the Rivian is definitely more luxurious as is, and they just introduced a higher end "Ascent" package for models year 25 that even kicks it up a notch. I don't have any plans to get rid of either of our Rivian any time soon, but assuming they are still around in 5 years, I'll happily buy another one when it's time. And the fact that VW just announced a $5BN investment over the next 5 years (they are going to do a joint venture to build the computer architecture and UI for future EVs together), that is good news for their long-term viability. 

Does Rivian have any plans to build anything smaller than a full size truck and full size SUV?

[hornian 5,157]

4 minutes ago, tokamak said:

Does Rivian have any plans to build anything smaller than a full size truck and full size SUV?

Yes. The have already announced the R2 and the R3, which are more of a midsize, 5 seater. The R2 is supposed to be available in 2026, the R3 sometime after that. I like the look of the R3X the most. 

https://rivian.com/newsroom/article/rivian-announces-mid-sized-platform

[Mach 1 1,676]

27 minutes ago, hornian said:

 They are also rolling out chargers with longer charging cords

From half ass internet research longe cords supposedly significantly lower charge time.

but honestly the low hanging fruit would be to just re-stripe the parking spots so that the chargers are on the line and not centered in a spot. 

Yes, this is will likely need to happen across the board. Easy fix, even centered if you back up a Tesla far enough it should reach.

 

 

 

Edited June 26 by Mach 1

[Dahobbs 17,180]

15 hours ago, hornian said:

 

There are also adapters that are already shipping/shipped to Ford and Rivian owners, and third party adapters, that allow Ford and Rivian to use a Supercharger without the magic dock. I know, because I have one, and have used a supercharger that didn't have the magic dock. Meaning, I can charge at ANY supercharger, not just the magic dock superchargers. 

This isn't accurate. Prior to V3 superchargers, Tesla had a different communication protocol. It works fine for Teslas, but isn't compatible with non Tesla vehicle. Only V3 or newer superchargers will be compatible with other vehicles. So it isn't any supercharger. But it is the majority of them and any new ones built going forward. 

[hornian 5,157]

31 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

This isn't accurate. Prior to V3 superchargers, Tesla had a different communication protocol. It works fine for Teslas, but isn't compatible with non Tesla vehicle. Only V3 or newer superchargers will be compatible with other vehicles. So it isn't any supercharger. But it is the majority of them and any new ones built going forward. 

Thanks for the correction. I’ll say every supercharger I’m aware of shows up on my available chargers in my Rivian, so I guess most/all of them in central Texas, Houston, and Dallas  are V3 or newer. 

[washparkhorn 9,898]

Some hopeful news on the EV front, perhaps. 

[Biff Tannen 45,013]

Figure this might get more visibility here than in Help. 
 

My Model 3 is in need of a brake job, but my regular mechanic won’t do it because if they lift it incorrectly, they are afraid they will crack the battery casing. Anyone know where I can get this done other than the Tesla service center?  It’s out of warranty now, so I’d rather not do that. 

[Dahobbs 17,180]

5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Figure this might get more visibility here than in Help. 
 

My Model 3 is in need of a brake job, but my regular mechanic won’t do it because if they lift it incorrectly, they are afraid they will crack the battery casing. Anyone know where I can get this done other than the Tesla service center?  It’s out of warranty now, so I’d rather not do that. 

Where are you? 

Also... is this a track vehicle? I can't understand how a model 3's brakes would get enough use at this point to need a brake job. I guess maybe the earliest model 3s would need one at this point. 

[CooterBrown 17,725]

On 6/25/2024 at 8:45 PM, hornian said:

Yes. The have already announced the R2 and the R3, which are more of a midsize, 5 seater. The R2 is supposed to be available in 2026, the R3 sometime after that. I like the look of the R3X the most. 

https://rivian.com/newsroom/article/rivian-announces-mid-sized-platform

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45,013]

4 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Where are you? 

Also... is this a track vehicle? I can't understand how a model 3's brakes would get enough use at this point to need a brake job. I guess maybe the earliest model 3s would need one at this point. 

2018 Model 3, one of the first in Austin, to my knowledge.  But more importantly, it's the wife's car.  That's why.

Edited June 28 by Biff Tannen
location central austin

[troph 23,995]

On 6/28/2024 at 1:07 PM, Biff Tannen said:

Figure this might get more visibility here than in Help. 
 

My Model 3 is in need of a brake job, but my regular mechanic won’t do it because if they lift it incorrectly, they are afraid they will crack the battery casing. Anyone know where I can get this done other than the Tesla service center?  It’s out of warranty now, so I’d rather not do that. 

We used a mobile mechanic to replace front and back brakes on my 2016 X just last week before we bugged out of Texas for a month (taking two cars). We’ve used them before. They have a shop in RR too but will travel as well. Good work imo. I can pass along their number if you’d like. I’d have to ask the wifey she found them and set it all up.

Edited July 1 by troph

[Biff Tannen 45,013]

9 hours ago, troph said:

We used a mobile mechanic to replace front and back brakes on my 2016 X just last week before we bugged out of Texas for a month (taking two cars). We’ve used them before. They have a shop in RR too but will travel as well. Good work imo. I can pass along their number if you’d like. I’d have to ask the wifey she found them and set it all up.

Yes please.  DM sent.

[52-80 18,982]

On 6/24/2024 at 10:51 PM, tokamak said:

Are Tesla vehicles still the "best" EVs in 2024? I realize this is the Tesla thread, not the EV thread. I may be in this market relatively soon but haven't done a lot of research yet. My impression was that others have caught up. Ioniq 6 looks really nice to me.

IMO best overall product is Tesla. Hyundai/Kia new-generation stuff is a close 2nd.

If you index on lux and comfort, best is BMW iX. If you want performance, best is Taycan.

New Polestar 3 looks awfully attractive though...  

In Europe, almost all cars share same charging format as Tesla (CCS2), and Superchargers opened up to them before the US. Has not impacted SC availability at all. 

[Newdoc 3,421]

On 7/5/2024 at 4:20 AM, 52-80 said:

New Polestar 3 looks awfully attractive though...  

It better because "starting at" $74K is steep for a non luxury electric CUV. The depreciation on that is going to be painful. 

[hornian 5,157]

1 hour ago, Newdoc said:

It better because "starting at" $74K is steep for a non luxury electric CUV. The depreciation on that is going to be painful. 

I'm pretty sure every automaker's response to any balking at a $74K non-luxury vehicle (and there's more than just Polestar out there - plenty of ICE vehicles that aren't Lexus, Mercedes, etc. above that) is:

 

[52-80 18,982]

3 hours ago, Newdoc said:

It better because "starting at" $74K is steep for a non luxury electric CUV. The depreciation on that is going to be painful. 

It’s a Volvo. I’ve been in the 2 and its squarely an upscale, premium feeling car, unless your threshold for luxury is S-class and above. 

Which also makes the Model Y LR at $41k post-credit a pretty insane deal IMO. 
 

[Newdoc 3,421]

15 hours ago, hornian said:

I'm pretty sure every automaker's response to any balking at a $74K non-luxury vehicle (and there's more than just Polestar out there - plenty of ICE vehicles that aren't Lexus, Mercedes, etc. above that) is:

 

If $74k+ was a good value then sure, go for it. And there aren’t a lot of non luxury vehicles in the CUV space that are clise to the price of the Polestar 3. The current Polestars hold value like the Cowboys hold a lead.

[Hard Times 285]

The future doesn't look to bright as it once was for Tesla. At least until battery technology advances and they aren't as poisonous.

 

[Dahobbs 17,180]

17 hours ago, Hard Times said:

The future doesn't look to bright as it once was for Tesla. At least until battery technology advances and they aren't as poisonous.

 

That whole video is nonsense. 

[Hard Times 285]

14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

That whole video is nonsense. 

Maybe, but the toxins in Lithium Ion batteries certainly isn't.  And the toxins released into the air when they burn is devastating to the environment. Along with it taking over 50x as much water to put it out as a conventional fire.

EV Batteries’ Chemical Risks to US Workers Rising as Plants Grow (bloomberglaw.com)

United Firefighters Union Australia warns governments to address lithium-ion battery fire risks during electric vehicle crashes - ABC News

"Lithium-ion battery fires release toxins such as carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen fluoride and cobalt."

I'm an environmentalist. I care deeply about what this is doing to our environment. I can't believe other environmentalists aren't all over it. Not to mention Li is being mined by slave labor in abhorrible conditions in 3rd world countries.

[Dahobbs 17,180]

1 minute ago, Hard Times said:

Maybe, but the toxins in Lithium Ion batteries certainly isn't.  And the toxins released into the air when they burn is devastating to the environment. Along with it taking over 50x as much water to put it out as a conventional fire.

EV Batteries’ Chemical Risks to US Workers Rising as Plants Grow (bloomberglaw.com)

United Firefighters Union Australia warns governments to address lithium-ion battery fire risks during electric vehicle crashes - ABC News

"Lithium-ion battery fires release toxins such as carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen fluoride and cobalt."

I'm an environmentalist. I care deeply about what this is doing to our environment. I can't believe other environmentalists aren't all over it. Not to mention Li is being mined by slave labor in abhorrible conditions in 3rd world countries.

Again, this is dumb shit. Burning gasoline also releases "toxins" like carbon monoxide. And go ahead and look at all the stuff used in fracking fluid if you're concerned about toxins. 

EV fires are much rarer than ICE fires. But they do require a different process to fight. 

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/environment-energy-coordination/climate-matters/EV-less-fire-risk

Cobalt is being phased out of EV battery chemistry to a large extent. 

https://www.adamasintel.com/decrease-in-cobalt-deployed-in-evs-by-sales-weighted-average/

And the most pressing environmental need is to stop releasing so many greenhouse gases, which EVs are can help stop. 

 

[Hard Times 285]

44 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, this is dumb shit. Burning gasoline also releases "toxins" like carbon monoxide. And go ahead and look at all the stuff used in fracking fluid if you're concerned about toxins. 

EV fires are much rarer than ICE fires. But they do require a different process to fight. 

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/environment-energy-coordination/climate-matters/EV-less-fire-risk

Cobalt is being phased out of EV battery chemistry to a large extent. 

https://www.adamasintel.com/decrease-in-cobalt-deployed-in-evs-by-sales-weighted-average/

And the most pressing environmental need is to stop releasing so many greenhouse gases, which EVs are can help stop. 

 

You didn't read far enough. Tesla has not eliminated cobalt.

"Metals used in lithium-ion EV batteries such as nickel, lithium, and cobalt are known to cause a variety of ailments, from cancer to nerve damage. And yet the extent of the risks posed by handling these materials is just beginning to come into focus."

Cobalt has not been phased out YET. I've had my share of inorganic chemistry courses. These metals are extremely carcinogenic.

And Tesla is using Li from countries that put their people in horrific conditions. And don't know how people support Musk and what Tesla is doing.

Lithium-ion batteries need to be greener and more ethical (nature.com)

While I certainly agree greenhouse gases need to be eliminated, I don't know how coal burning electric powerplants used to charge EV's are doing that. There are a whole lot of things that have to happen before EV's make environmental sense, including SMR's or other safe energy sources, and we are far from being there. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, hybrids make sense. EV's do not, until battery and other technologies advance. Centerpoint can't keep Houston powered, how are going to power EV's?

[Dahobbs 17,180]

8 minutes ago, Hard Times said:

You didn't read far enough. Tesla has not eliminated cobalt.

"Metals used in lithium-ion EV batteries such as nickel, lithium, and cobalt are known to cause a variety of ailments, from cancer to nerve damage. And yet the extent of the risks posed by handling these materials is just beginning to come into focus."

Cobalt has not been phased out YET. I've had my share of inorganic chemistry courses. These metals are extremely carcinogenic.

And Tesla is using Li from countries that put their people in horrific conditions. And don't know how people support Musk and what Tesla is doing.

Lithium-ion batteries need to be greener and more ethical (nature.com)

While I certainly agree greenhouse gases need to be eliminated, I don't know how coal burning electric powerplants used to charge EV's are doing that. There are a whole lot of things that have to happen before EV's make environmental sense, including SMR's or other safe energy sources, and we are far from being there. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, hybrids make sense. EV's do not, until battery and other technologies advance. Centerpoint can't keep Houston powered, how are going to power EV's?

1) coal makes up less than 20% of the US grid and that number is dropping. 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/electricity-generated-from-renewables-surpassed-coal-in-the-u-s-last-year

2) even if coal made up the entire grid, EVs would still release less greenhouse gases than ICE vehicles over their lifetime. 

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/

Quote

Even in the worst case scenario where an EV is charged only from a coal-fired grid, it would generate an extra 4.1 million grams of carbon a year while a comparable gasoline car would produce over 4.6 million grams, the Reuters analysis showed.

3) I didn't say cobalt was eliminated yet. I said it is being phased out. And it is. 

4) yes , we need to be able to improve mining of raw materials for batteries. But that is a solvable problem. Meanwhile, you continue to ignore the vast environmental damage done when drilling for oil and gas. It is orders of magnitude more than what is necessary to mine lithium. 

More articles on debunking your false narrative:

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/07/electric-cars-have-much-lower-life-cycle-emissions-new-study-confirms/

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/04/new-ev-vs-old-beater-which-is-better-for-the-environment/

https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric-emissions

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-03-21/evs-are-much-lower-emitting-than-combustion-cars

 

[ChickenSandwich 9,760]

How do these studies handle the limited lifetime of a battery which is about 10-20 years vs a toyota that will for run for 300,000-400,000 miles?

The same EV would need at least one, maybe 2 $20k battery changes to do the same. 

[Dahobbs 17,180]

7 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

How do these studies handle the limited lifetime of a battery which is about 10-20 years vs a toyota that will for run for 300,000-400,000 miles?

The same EV would need at least one, maybe 2 $20k battery changes to do the same. 

There are literally Tesla's with 300,000 miles on the road with the same battery. And on average those ICE vehicles with hundreds of thousands of miles on them have had many components of those engines replaced or rebuilt. 

Anyway, you can refer to the methodology of each study as they defer. In general they appear to be using historical values for lifetime mileage of a vehicle. 

[Jkwellborn 6,577]

You know pretty much every vehicle is going to hit 150,000 miles with nothing other than maintenance right? Most are going 200,000+ with nothing now.

[Dahobbs 17,180]

11 hours ago, Jkwellborn said:

You know pretty much every vehicle is going to hit 150,000 miles with nothing other than maintenance right? Most are going 200,000+ with nothing now.

"nothing other than maintenance" is a nothing statement. If you're limiting maintenance to things like oil changes, I call bullshit. I've owned enough cars to know that doesn't happen. Something always breaks. It may be caught as part of your regular maintenance, but it is a separate repair. You'll have transmission issues. You'll have leaks. You'll have issues with the alternator or the battery. Modern cars have definitely gotten better at lasting longer, but people tend to ignore the random repairs under $1,000 when talking about the work done on a vehicle. At any rate, a modern EV's battery is going to have no issue outliving the life of the vehicle on average. 

[Gil Bang 25,551]

fuck man, a battery is "routine maintenance" on a gas engine car.   The fancier the car, the shorter the life span.  I'm changing them every 4 years in my truck, and every 2 in the Mercedes.

[52-80 18,982]

On 7/14/2024 at 1:17 PM, Hard Times said:

Maybe, but the toxins in Lithium Ion batteries certainly isn't.  And the toxins released into the air when they burn is devastating to the environment. Along with it taking over 50x as much water to put it out as a conventional fire.

EV Batteries’ Chemical Risks to US Workers Rising as Plants Grow (bloomberglaw.com)

United Firefighters Union Australia warns governments to address lithium-ion battery fire risks during electric vehicle crashes - ABC News

"Lithium-ion battery fires release toxins such as carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen fluoride and cobalt."

I'm an environmentalist. I care deeply about what this is doing to our environment. I can't believe other environmentalists aren't all over it. Not to mention Li is being mined by slave labor in abhorrible conditions in 3rd world countries.

What are the odds that environmentalists get basic actual facts wrong?

Lithium is extracted from brines in Chile in hands-off operation, or in open pits in Australia.

Sweden: Electric car have 25x less incidence of fire https://www.msb.se/sv/aktuellt/nyheter/2023/maj/brander-i-eltransportmedel-under-2022

IIHS: Electric cars lowest risk of non-crash fire loss https://www.iihs.org/media/c93b98d8-6a7d-44a1-810e-4468ec539e05/uIu4tg/HLDI Research/Fire losses/HLDI_FireLosses_1218.pdf

 

 

 

On 7/14/2024 at 2:33 PM, Hard Times said:

And Tesla is using Li from countries that put their people in horrific conditions. And don't know how people support Musk and what Tesla is doing.

...

While I certainly agree greenhouse gases need to be eliminated, I don't know how coal burning electric powerplants used to charge EV's are doing that. There are a whole lot of things that have to happen before EV's make environmental sense, including SMR's or other safe energy sources, and we are far from being there. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, hybrids make sense. EV's do not, until battery and other technologies advance. Centerpoint can't keep Houston powered, how are going to power EV's?

Are those horrific countries Chile, Australia, or Tesla's own lithium refining operation starting up in Texas?

Coal burning electric powerplants charging EVs are eliminating greenhouse gases, because the lifetime emissions of electric vehicle -- INCLUDING its production -- is lower than of combustion vehicles, "AT THIS POINT IN TIME", INCLUSIVE of coal as a power source.  And will be even net cleaner as coal is being reduced a power source. 

Have you bothered to read, perhaps, the governments assessment: https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric-emissions https://greet.anl.gov/publication-c2g_lca_us_ldv https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/ev_emissions_impact.pdf

"Centerpoint can't keep Houston powered"..... you mean during this natural disaster, when there are also fuel shortages? https://abc13.com/post/hurricane-beryl-recovery-long-lines-gas-groceries-kroger-heb-open/15047040/

https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2024/07/10/looking-for-gas-help-us-update-our-list-of-open-gas-stations-in-houston/

https://communityimpact.com/houston/bay-area/weather/2024/07/11/gasoline-shortages-add-to-woes-caused-by-ongoing-power-outages-in-houston/

Residents can also power their EVs with domestic solar power.  Do you perhaps have your own coal burning plant and hydrocarbon refinery in your house?

 

Edited July 16 by 52-80

[Dahobbs 17,180]

10 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

fuck man, a battery is "routine maintenance" on a gas engine car.   The fancier the car, the shorter the life span.  I'm changing them every 4 years in my truck, and every 2 in the Mercedes.

That illustrates my point. "Routine maintenance" on a ICE vehicle is expensive. But a lead acid battery is not in anyway comparable to modern, actively managed EV battery. 

[Hard Times 285]

5 hours ago, 52-80 said:

What are the odds that environmentalists get basic actual facts wrong?

Lithium is extracted from brines in Chile in hands-off operation, or in open pits in Australia.

Sweden: Electric car have 25x less incidence of fire https://www.msb.se/sv/aktuellt/nyheter/2023/maj/brander-i-eltransportmedel-under-2022

IIHS: Electric cars lowest risk of non-crash fire loss https://www.iihs.org/media/c93b98d8-6a7d-44a1-810e-4468ec539e05/uIu4tg/HLDI Research/Fire losses/HLDI_FireLosses_1218.pdf

 

 

 

Are those horrific countries Chile, Australia, or Tesla's own lithium refining operation starting up in Texas?

Coal burning electric powerplants charging EVs are eliminating greenhouse gases, because the lifetime emissions of electric vehicle -- INCLUDING its production -- is lower than of combustion vehicles, "AT THIS POINT IN TIME", INCLUSIVE of coal as a power source.  And will be even net cleaner as coal is being reduced a power source. 

Have you bothered to read, perhaps, the governments assessment: https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric-emissions https://greet.anl.gov/publication-c2g_lca_us_ldv https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/ev_emissions_impact.pdf

"Centerpoint can't keep Houston powered"..... you mean during this natural disaster, when there are also fuel shortages? https://abc13.com/post/hurricane-beryl-recovery-long-lines-gas-groceries-kroger-heb-open/15047040/

https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2024/07/10/looking-for-gas-help-us-update-our-list-of-open-gas-stations-in-houston/

https://communityimpact.com/houston/bay-area/weather/2024/07/11/gasoline-shortages-add-to-woes-caused-by-ongoing-power-outages-in-houston/

Residents can also power their EVs with domestic solar power.  Do you perhaps have your own coal burning plant and hydrocarbon refinery in your house?

 

1000 ICE fires release less poisonous toxins than 1 EV fire, including cyanide. And there's no way Houston will be able to power 5 million EV's in the next 25 years.

[Dahobbs 17,180]

21 minutes ago, Hard Times said:

1000 ICE fires release less poisonous toxins than 1 EV fire, including cyanide. And there's no way Houston will be able to power 5 million EV's in the next 25 years.

You have no evidence for either of those statements. You're just pulling shit out of your ass. 

Houston's issues during the storm were entirely transmission related (e.g., downed lines). It had nothing to do with generation capacity.  

[Hard Times 285]

14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You have no evidence for either of those statements. You're just pulling shit out of your ass. 

Houston's issues during the storm were entirely transmission related (e.g., downed lines). It had nothing to do with generation capacity.  

I have more evidence that one can imagine, but I've chosen not to waste my time with you.

[Dahobbs 17,180]

1 hour ago, Hard Times said:

I have more evidence that one can imagine, but I've chosen not to waste my time with you.

What does that even mean? Link me to anything that supports your statements. I've provided ample studies and articles that support mine. 

Here, let me help you some:

http://ri.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1522149/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Quote

Based on these sources a battery electric passenger car fire in Norway is about five times less probable than a conventional car fire, while in Sweden an EV fire is about twenty times less probable than a conventional vehicle fire. As mentioned, the statistics might not be complete, but even if some smaller fire incidents are not covered one can conclude that fires including or starting in the traction battery are rare and exceptional. 

* * *

Regarding toxic gases, hydrogen fluoride represents the largest difference between electric vehicles and conventional vehicles, but when smoke from vehicle fire is inhaled there are several acute toxic gases present regardless of the type of vehicle burning. Except hydrogen fluoride, there are also some specific metals present in the smoke that constitutes a large difference between the powertrains.

* * * 

Hydrogen fluoride (HF) is of certain interest due to that it can be absorbed through the skin, but results from this project show that the total quantities might be lower than potentially expected from electric vehicles and the simulations of a potentially worst case scenario in a parking garage also show relatively low maximum concentrations.   

* * * 

Peak heat release rate and total heat release are affected by the fire scenario and vehicle model, but not significantly by the powertrain. However, HF together with some specific metals, e.g. Ni, Co, Li and Mn (depending on the battery cell chemistry), in the smoke exhaust constitute a large difference between electrical and conventional vehicles. When smoke from a vehicle fire is inhaled however there are several acute toxic gases present regardless of the type of vehicle burning, e.g. CO, HF, HCl and SO2. This is based on a comparison between listed health exposure limits and total quantities measured in vehicle and battery fire tests both in this project and in previous studies.  

* * * 

 Based on these sources a battery electric passenger car fire in Norway is about five times less probable than a conventional car fire, while in Sweden an EV fire is about twenty times less probable than a conventional vehicle fire. 

* * *

* * *

* * *

 

 

Quote

 

2.1.3.4 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons  Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are organic compounds of two or more joined aromatic rings. The toxicity of PAHs involves a range of non-cancer and cancer effects, and the toxicity of individual PAHs varies considerably. The tendency for fuels to form PAHs in combustion varies depending on the fuel. The greatest yields are obtained from aromatic fuels followed by cyclic aliphatics, olefins and paraffins, in decreasing order of magnitude. PAHs are present in air in the gaseous phase or adsorbed onto particles. PAHs having two to three aromatic rings are present in air predominantly in the vapour phase. PAHs with four aromatic rings are both present in the vapour and particulate phase, and PAHs having five or more aromatic rings are found predominantly in the particle phase [72]. 

 

The overall result is that some values are higher for an EV fire and some are higher for an ICE fire. A single EV fire is not going to release more toxins than a 1,000 ICE fires. The closest you can get to anything like that is looking at very specific particles in the soot and ash (e.g., lithium and cobalt) while ignoring things like lead where ICE fires contain more. Nothing about the difference between the two is unmanageable or anywhere near to the extremes you suggest. Given the significantly lower chance of an EV fire, total release from fires given comparable fleet sizes would appear to mostly favor BEVs. 

Edited July 16 by Dahobbs

[Hard Times 285]

13 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What does that even mean? Link me to anything that supports your statements. I've provided ample studies and articles that support mine. 

Here, let me help you some:

http://ri.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1522149/FULLTEXT01.pdf

 

The overall result is that some values are higher for an EV fire and some are higher for an ICE fire. A single EV fire is not going to release more toxins than a 1,000 ICE fires. The closest you can get to anything like that is looking at very specific particles in the soot and ash (e.g., lithium and cobalt) while ignoring things like lead where ICE fires contain more. Nothing about the difference between the two is unmanageable or anywhere near to the extremes you suggest. Given the significantly lower chance of an EV fire, total release from fires given comparable fleet sizes would appear to mostly favor BEVs. 

🤣 Keep posting your drivel I won't read 1 word of. Love It!

[Dahobbs 17,180]

1 minute ago, Hard Times said:

🤣 Keep posting your drivel I won't read 1 word of. Love It!

Ok. I provide you science and testing, you sit in the corner with a dunce cap. Revel in your stupidity and ignorance I guess. 

[Dahobbs 17,180]

@Hard Times

Instead of negging, you could actually post some of your supposed evidence. Or just take a moment and read mine. I'm not cherry picking here. The study I posted even somewhat supports part of your position to the extent one of the EVs did release measurable amounts of hydrogen cyanide (the other didn't though).  It just turns out that burning a ICE vehicle also releases a ton of nasty stuff as well. And the empirical data shows BEV fires are significantly less likely than ICE fires. I get that spreading misinformation can be fun, but I'm not sure why you spend your time doing it. 

Edited July 16 by Dahobbs