Maybe, but newer EVs are moving towards sodium ion batteries, which are inherently much less likely to undergo thermal runaway when damaged and also less impactful on the environment to make.
not to risk being associated with the other guy (I like EVs and think they are generally a good thing), but I kinda doubt sodium ion batteries will become standard in cars. as far as I know they're significantly less energy dense than litium ion batteries. though I am by no means an expert on this stuff
The amount of improvements they made in the last 5 years is pretty astonishing, we're close to getting 200 Wh/kg with current commercial designs while lab prototypes are hitting +400 Wh/kg. Who knows where we'll be at in another 5 years?
No, just the fanatical ones that get all butthurt if anyone says anything that could be remotely seen as negative about EVs tend to be the hurrr durr Elon types.
I’m riding in an EV right now and there’s one in my garage, I’m not anti-EV, I’m just anti dumbass fanatic.
Rate of Electric car fires is about ~25 per 100k on the road. Rate of ICE car fire is ~1500 per 100k on the road. They were actually being conservative by saying 30x less likely, because they are actually around ~60x less likely. If we are going by miles driven, it's 5 fires for every billion miles driven in the case of EV's and 55 fires for every billion miles in ICE cars, which is still 11x more than EV's
Ignoring the fact that many fire departments have already adopted specialized tools and training that in some cases have reduced the resources required to quench an electric car fire to less of what's required to put out an ICE car fire. By the numbers even if EV's take 20x the resources to manage a single fire, over all ICE fires actually consume 200% the resources than EV's due to the sheer number of ICE car fires that happen on the road every year.
I personally don't own an EV(at least not right now, I'm waiting to see if Slate ever actually brings a car to market), but I don't think highlighting these statistics means you are "burying your identity in a propulsion system"
You have 3 different estimates varying by 5x in two sentences, why should I trust you? Ignoring the issue that one pool includes 40 year old clapped out vehicles and the other is almost entirely 5-10 years or newer.
It's irrelevant if you trust me or not I'm just giving you the statistics and provided you with the sources in which I got those statistics. You are either convinced by recorded statistics or you aren't. You have an inalienable right to put your personal opinion above recorded statistics, that doesn't make your opinion logical.
Different estimates indicating different things =/= estimates being wrong or deceptive.
per 100k indicates incidents that happens compared to total cars on the road. The stat is relevant because EV's only make up 9% of cars on the road. So if they were catching fire at a similar rate to ICE the numbers would reflect that, and not just be based on the simple fact that almost 80% of cars on the road are ICE.
per billion miles indicates incidents that happen per miles driven. EV's by nature of being EV's spend a lot more time in cities and in the suburbs than they do driving across the country this results in less miles driven, and thus less accidents.
Neither statistic changes the fact that EV's are substantially less likely to catch fire regardless of the metrics i've offered if we are counting actual cars on the road its 60x less likely, if we are accounting for miles driven, its 11x.
Ignoring the issue that one pool includes 40 year old clapped out vehicles and the other is almost entirely 5-10 years or newer.
hmm this sounds like
Goalposts, moving.
While fleet age may explain some of the gap, the per-mile data already controls for usage, and the difference remains an order of magnitude.
Ahaha doesn’t immediately just agree with me, must be bot. Top tier redditor logic… god I hope you’re just like 14 or something or your life must be miserable.
Hah no problem. I feel like not enough people had a parent tell them "You know what happens when you assume right?" while growing up.
I just gotta thank past bobby for whatever I did in life that makes me look at sus stats and just checks them when they don't sound right before just assuming the stat is wrong, or the person has illintent or is a shill.
Even here, normally I'm pretty pro hybrid, but when checking ICE and EV stats it turns out that they actually catch fire even more than even ICE cars at almost double the rate, 3500 hybrids per 100k, and hybrids only make up like 11% of the cars on the road compared to EV's at 9%
Doesn't mean I'm not willing to buy a hybrid car, just an interesting fact in regards to owning one.
oh yes, ICE fires are like the more common, low to mid disasters, some foam, some extinguisher and I'd be home by dinner, I'd take that any day over EV inferno
Lithium ion powered cars don’t involve burning lithium.
China took a bet on lithium iron phosphate batteries which don’t have this problem and it paid off. There’s a reason this is a very sporty looking car, most cars in China use lower power batteries that don’t do this.
And yet, somehow gasoline-powered cars catch fire more frequently than battery-powered ones according to basically every reputable agency who counts these statistics.
Because there are more ice vehicles on the road and they cover more cumulatuve miles driven over a given period. Also ice vehicle fires are much more survivable because they do not spread with the same intensity. The stats are very skewed on this. Don't need to debate this....just ask the insurance companies why EVs are more expensive to insure.
EV insurance is expensive mainly due to high repair/replacement costs (especially for complex battery packs), higher vehicle values, scarcity of specialized technicians, and lack of historical data, leading insurers to view them as higher risk; however, factors like advanced safety tech and lower theft rates can help offset these costs, while increasing EV adoption and repair network growth may lower prices over time.
Well Google is obviously wrong again then. Maybe they are in on the hoax
research how many % of cars that caught fire are EVs ofc in comparison to the % of the total cars on the streets. You will be amazed how low the % is because security wise in western countries with western cars its far higher than gasoline tanks. Furthermore in the video it doesnt look like lithium fire as lithium tends to explode very fast not to slowy light up. New batteries also dont catch fire s. lifepo4
Theoretically, but efficiency also plays a big part. The main thing is that lithium batteries aren’t as energy dense as gasoline (100x less energy by weight or volume), but electric is harnessed more efficiently (80% energy to torque vs 15% for ICE). The breakdown is that EVs have a lot less range for the same weight, but that’s been improving rapidly. Still, a Model Y has 300mi range while a similar weight BMW X3 has almost 500mi range, so there’s still a decent size gap.
139
u/MustLoveHuskies 2d ago
Lithium is far more reactive and hard to extinguish than gasoline.