w/ just a small dash of irony;-)

Monocrom

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
19,551
Location
NYC
Second link basically says the same thing I did-let it burn. There really seem to be no other good options for a burning EV.
One, glad to hear you weren't permanently injured. Two, if that is indeed the best course of action with an EV, then clearly the technology was released to the general public for sale FAR too soon! I mean, really; just set it aside in a non-crowded area for the fire and the toxic fumes to burn off?? Okay, try doing that in the heart of Manhattan on a crowded afternoon. Or, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, etc. If THAT'S the answer, I would love to know the names of the greedy, moronically, irresponsible, worthless excuses for a human-beings who decided to release this technology clearly before it should have been!

None of us should be discussing the merits of EVs. This is a conversation our grand-children should be having after decades was spent perfecting this technology.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,502
Location
Flushing, NY
One, glad to hear you weren't permanently injured. Two, if that is indeed the best course of action with an EV, then clearly the technology was released to the general public for sale FAR too soon! I mean, really; just set it aside in a non-crowded area for the fire and the toxic fumes to burn off?? Okay, try doing that in the heart of Manhattan on a crowded afternoon. Or, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, etc.
Basically the same issue exists with anything which has a lithium-ion battery, not just EVs. Your laptop catches fire? Put it somewhere the fire won't spread, and let it burn itself out. Same with your phone.

The point I made earlier is EV fires, although hard to extinguish, are thankfully very uncommon. If they occurred very often then I would agree we rolled out the technology too soon. However, that would also mean we rolled out every single device using lithium-ion batteries too soon.
If THAT'S the answer, I would love to know the names of the greedy, moronically, irresponsible, worthless excuses for a human-beings who decided to release this technology clearly before it should have been!
I could say the same about ICEs which emit toxic fumes in the course of normal operation. In the final analysis we're not going to wait for any technology to become perfect before rolling it out. In fact, without rolling it out we lack the means to perfect it further. For example, some people complain about testing autonomous vehicles on public roads. Well, we'll never get them to work in real-world conditions without testing them in real-world conditions.
None of us should be discussing the merits of EVs. This is a conversation our grand-children should be having after decades was spent perfecting this technology.
The concept of EVs is perfectly sound. The issues are with one particular type of battery which is actually being phased out of most EV use. EVs using LFP or sodium batteries don't present these problems. If we were really smart we would have had EVs after the 1970s energy crisis. Not powered solely by batteries, but picking up their power from conductors embedded in highways like slot cars. We would only need a battery large enough to carry through dead spots. Even lead-acid would do for that. No range issues at all with this type of EV. You could in theory drive cross-country without stopping.

The high-capacity lithium-ion cells which occasionally catch fire are the end result of two obsessions. One is maximizing range to the extent of all else. The other is the idea that the vehicle has to store all the energy it needs, instead of getting it on the fly like electric trains do. People asked for this. The auto manufacturers gave it to them. That's why we have EVs which can start nasty fires.

I think the conversation we'll be having is 5 or 10 years will be more along the lines of why we used lithium-ion batteries in EVs in the first place. After all, we had far safer LFP for something like the last 20 years. Yes, it would have meant less range, but the quicker recharging would have largely negated that disadvantage. Recharging every 500 miles, taking 50 minutes, uses up no more time on a long trip than recharging every 300 miles for 30 minutes. That's really the only difference between LFP and lithium-ion. High range numbers make for good press, but for the vast majority of trips 300 miles is more than adequate. The more quickly you can recharge, the less the range matters. Sodium-ion batteries are able to go from 0 to 80% in 15 minutes. That's even better than LFP.
 

Monocrom

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
19,551
Location
NYC
Basically the same issue exists with anything which has a lithium-ion battery, not just EVs. Your laptop catches fire? Put it somewhere the fire won't spread, and let it burn itself out. Same with your phone.

The point I made earlier is EV fires, although hard to extinguish, are thankfully very uncommon. If they occurred very often then I would agree we rolled out the technology too soon. However, that would also mean we rolled out every single device using lithium-ion batteries too soon.
Yes, exactly; far too soon! Unfortunately, greedy pieces of human garbage are the ones in charge whether or not unsafe, untested, unreliable technology gets released to the general public or not. And, I'm sorry but EV fires are not uncommon at all. They occur far too often to no be a real issue. So yes, I agree. Despite being a flashaholic, rechargeable lithium-Ion technology clearly never should have been released to the masses as early as when it was.
I could say the same about ICEs which emit toxic fumes in the course of normal operation.
Definitely not the same thing. A car backfires and you accidentally breath in the fumes, it's going to be a bit unpleasant. Compare that to a lithium-ion battery venting with flame, and you accidentally inhale a bit of the fumes. We both know it's not even remotely the same thing. Unfortunately we know it because of a certain CPFer who had that happen to him. Horrendous respiratory issues afterwards. He updated the thread 10 years after everything took place. Still suffering from medical issues. Had to sell off a big chunk of his personal possessions just to afford the medical care.

In the final analysis we're not going to wait for any technology to become perfect before rolling it out. In fact, without rolling it out we lack the means to perfect it further. For example, some people complain about testing autonomous vehicles on public roads. Well, we'll never get them to work in real-world conditions without testing them in real-world conditions.
Simple solution to the first part, don't tell the public about it! There's no reason to do so! It only gets released early because greedy scumbags want to worship their God Of Money as much as possible! Two decades back, a researcher, despite not being authorized to do so; told the public that initial results in lab mice infected with HIV showed a reversal had occurred. Give you one guess what happened next.... A mob of HIV Positive men showed up at the research center. Demanding that the "cure" be released to the public. Turned into a near riot! Police were called, and for obvious reasons kept their distance.
The concept of EVs is perfectly sound. The issues are with one particular type of battery which is actually being phased out of most EV use.
Yes, the concept is sound. The execution in the real world is a miserable failure. The vast majority of car owners live in apartment buildings. Building that have no underground garages where individual charging stations can be installed. And, outdoor public charging stations exist in such few numbers that for the masses, they might as well not exist at all! I've mentioned this before, approximately 7,500 outdoor charging stations available for all of NYC, plus two cities located in New Jersey. That's a combined population of over 8.5 Million people. That 7,500 is an idiotic joke that no one is laughing at. Not to mention that it takes literally 5 minutes to gas up an ICE vehicle. But can easily take 30 minutes to "gas up" an EV to 80% charge. For the most part EVs, are a Rich man's toy.

If car makers were serious about replacing ICE vehicles, they'd focus on improving Hybrid technology to its absolute upper limits. No charging stations required at all. Perfect for the masses who live in apartments.

EVs using LFP or sodium batteries don't present these problems.
I agree. Though that's not the technology were stuck having to deal with right now.
If we were really smart we would have had EVs after the 1970s energy crisis. Not powered solely by batteries, but picking up their power from conductors embedded in highways like slot cars. We would only need a battery large enough to carry through dead spots. Even lead-acid would do for that. No range issues at all with this type of EV. You could in theory drive cross-country without stopping.
I'm sorry but that's just unrealistic and extremely cost prohibitive. Ripping up highways to embed those conductors? Even if the money was somehow available, the amount of time needed to do so, and the horrible interruption of highway traffic/commerce while those massive sections are being ripped apart.... Not to mention getting car-makers to agree to change how they produce their vehicles, plus getting consumers to buy all new vehicles? Not even the most power-mad dictator with a secret police force could pull that off.
The high-capacity lithium-ion cells which occasionally catch fire are the end result of two obsessions. One is maximizing range to the extent of all else. The other is the idea that the vehicle has to store all the energy it needs, instead of getting it on the fly like electric trains do. People asked for this. The auto manufacturers gave it to them. That's why we have EVs which can start nasty fires.
The people didn't ask for this. Those with a political agenda to push, and greedy scumbags asked for this. The masses would have been happy to keep their ICE vehicles. And I'm sorry but, huge difference between electric trains vs. individually-owned electric cars.

Car-makers wanted to make money. If they actually cared about the masses and the planet, they wouldn't be wasting their time with EVs. They'd be pumping out Hybrids.
I think the conversation we'll be having is 5 or 10 years will be more along the lines of why we used lithium-ion batteries in EVs in the first place. After all, we had far safer LFP for something like the last 20 years. Yes, it would have meant less range, but the quicker recharging would have largely negated that disadvantage. Recharging every 500 miles, taking 50 minutes, uses up no more time on a long trip than recharging every 300 miles for 30 minutes. That's really the only difference between LFP and lithium-ion. High range numbers make for good press, but for the vast majority of trips 300 miles is more than adequate. The more quickly you can recharge, the less the range matters. Sodium-ion batteries are able to go from 0 to 80% in 15 minutes. That's even better than LFP.
Definitely agree with you there.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,502
Location
Flushing, NY
Yes, exactly; far too soon! Unfortunately, greedy pieces of human garbage are the ones in charge whether or not unsafe, untested, unreliable technology gets released to the general public or not.
Isn't that the story of pretty much every for-profit company in existence? As an engineer I have a front-row seat to this nonsense with customers pushing me to design stuff on a timeframe where I often can't get all the kinks out. I know lots of engineers chase perfection to the exclusion of all else but I'm not one of them. I know when something is "good enough" for mass production, and when it still needs a little work. The bean counters at big corporations weigh the cost of warranty failures versus lost profits by waiting for further development. Usually they come in on the side of losing fewer profits by prematurely releasing products before engineers say they're ready.
And, I'm sorry but EV fires are not uncommon at all. They occur far too often to no be a real issue. So yes, I agree. Despite being a flashaholic, rechargeable lithium-Ion technology clearly never should have been released to the masses as early as when it was.
If you look at my posting history for a really long time I was hesitant to use lithium-ion batteries at all. I would often shun devices with built-in lithium batteries in favor of those which could take Eneloops. I figured let the early adopters be guinea pigs. One of my concerns had nothing to do with safety, but rather calendar life. In the past, lithium cells would often lose capacity after a few years, even with low numbers of cycles. I had no desire to buy something which might be a brick in a few years. Lithium-ion finally reached a state of development where I feel comfortable using it, but only in the last 5 years or so. I still gravitate towards LFP for larger power storage applications for its inherent safety.
Definitely not the same thing. A car backfires and you accidentally breath in the fumes, it's going to be a bit unpleasant. Compare that to a lithium-ion battery venting with flame, and you accidentally inhale a bit of the fumes. We both know it's not even remotely the same thing. Unfortunately we know it because of a certain CPFer who had that happen to him. Horrendous respiratory issues afterwards. He updated the thread 10 years after everything took place. Still suffering from medical issues. Had to sell off a big chunk of his personal possessions just to afford the medical care.
Sure, breathing in fumes from a vented lithium-ion battery is far worse per minute of exposure than breathing auto exhaust fumes. No argument there. However, cumulative exposure to auto exhaust causes millions of premature deaths worldwide. EVs solve a large portion of that problem, plus the noise pollution of ICEs. The latter isn't something to gloss over, either.
Simple solution to the first part, don't tell the public about it! There's no reason to do so! It only gets released early because greedy scumbags want to worship their God Of Money as much as possible! Two decades back, a researcher, despite not being authorized to do so; told the public that initial results in lab mice infected with HIV showed a reversal had occurred. Give you one guess what happened next.... A mob of HIV Positive men showed up at the research center. Demanding that the "cure" be released to the public. Turned into a near riot! Police were called, and for obvious reasons kept their distance.
Funny you mentioned this. For starters, usually when I have something new in the pipeline I tell nobody about it until it's ready. I don't like to be rushed with people screaming at me to start making it before I'm ready. As for the rest, that's wonderful humanity for you. When people are sick, they'll grasp at straws for any cure. Do you remember the AIDs fiasco with Chapstick? For those not familiar Chapstick had "Aids prevention and cure of chapped lips" written on their products. Some idiots thought this meant it prevents and cures AIDS. I'm only guessing what part of their anatomy they probably applied Chapstick to. Human stupidity is boundless. It really is.
Yes, the concept is sound. The execution in the real world is a miserable failure. The vast majority of car owners live in apartment buildings. Building that have no underground garages where individual charging stations can be installed. And, outdoor public charging stations exist in such few numbers that for the masses, they might as well not exist at all! I've mentioned this before, approximately 7,500 outdoor charging stations available for all of NYC, plus two cities located in New Jersey. That's a combined population of over 8.5 Million people. That 7,500 is an idiotic joke that no one is laughing at. Not to mention that it takes literally 5 minutes to gas up an ICE vehicle. But can easily take 30 minutes to "gas up" an EV to 80% charge. For the most part EVs, are a Rich man's toy.
I agree the execution has been flawed. For starters if we really want to phase out ICEs by 2035 or whenever, we should be upgrading the grid now, and adding generating capacity via solar, wind, and nuclear. That's just part one. Then we need to be installing lots of charging stations, particularly in large cities like New York with apartment dwellers lacking a driveway or garage to recharge.

And then as I already mentioned, we should have been using mostly LFP batteries, except for vehicles which really, really needed the additional range of lithium-ion (that would be mostly commercial vehicles). Thankfully we're now heading this way with stuff like CATL's new 200 Wh/kg LFP battery. The good news is given the current small EV market share, by the time EVs are common most will be LFP or sodium-ion. The bad news is we'll have a small number of the dangerous ones around for a while.

E-bike batteries are a much bigger problem on a per capita basis given that this market caters to the bottom. That means cheap cells and poor battery management.
If car makers were serious about replacing ICE vehicles, they'd focus on improving Hybrid technology to its absolute upper limits. No charging stations required at all. Perfect for the masses who live in apartments.
The thing is hybrids don't really solve the problems EVs solve. You still burn fossil fuel, they still pollute. Plug-in hybrids partially fix things if they allow most short trips to be done on the battery, but at the expense of extra complexity.
I'm sorry but that's just unrealistic and extremely cost prohibitive. Ripping up highways to embed those conductors? Even if the money was somehow available, the amount of time needed to do so, and the horrible interruption of highway traffic/commerce while those massive sections are being ripped apart.... Not to mention getting car-makers to agree to change how they produce their vehicles, plus getting consumers to buy all new vehicles? Not even the most power-mad dictator with a secret police force could pull that off.
Well, you're right here but it represented a way to electrify an auto-based transportation system with far smaller batteries. The real solution to electrifying our transportation system would be electric trains and getting away from mass auto dependency. Unfortunately, that ship sailed when the government bankrolled massive highway construction/suburbanization in the 1950s while letting the railroads rot. Other countries electrified and upgraded their railways. For those countries the path to electrifying transportation is far easier.
The people didn't ask for this. Those with a political agenda to push, and greedy scumbags asked for this. The masses would have been happy to keep their ICE vehicles.
Actually, many did ask for it. I for one am sick and tired of OPEC playing us like a harp from hell. Now they're making noise about lowering production to get oil prices up yet again. How many times have they pulled this nonsense? Oil companies are among the greediest going, along with being the worst polluters. So yeah, lots of us want to thumb our noses at them, tell them to stick their oil you know where. Getting rid of ICEs is a good start provided we execute EVs right (we largely haven't so far). When the $20K or lower EVs with LFP batteries hit the market then we'll be finally making stuff the masses can safely use.
Car-makers wanted to make money. If they actually cared about the masses and the planet, they wouldn't be wasting their time with EVs. They'd be pumping out Hybrids.
There's actually a dirty little secret why the automakers had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the EV business. They make lots of their money on spare parts. Battery fires notwithstanding, EVs just don't break often enough for their tastes. For the same reason car dealers claim nobody wants to buy EVs, but in reality they don't want to sell them because they're less profitable.

It's no secret that often the products which are best for the end user don't get made under a capitalist system without prodding by governments. As flawed as the execution of EVs has been, in the long run they're still a much better deal for the vast majority of people in terms of TCO, plus the reductions in air pollution. The keys are get rid of the dangerous batteries, bring the price at least to parity with ICE vehicles, if not lower, and install lots of charging stations.
 

bykfixer

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
20,204
Location
John 3:16
Where you going to get all that electricity from? As I've said before, finish inventing the cart before you stick it in front of the horse and please please please make the cars self charging with easily swapped batteries. Do that and factories won't be able to build them fast enough.

Those e-bikes blow up right regularly but they still sell faster than $3 martinis.
 

Monocrom

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
19,551
Location
NYC
Isn't that the story of pretty much every for-profit company in existence?
No, there are some responsible ones. Though admittedly not too many. Still, there is a choice.
As an engineer I have a front-row seat to this nonsense with customers pushing me to design stuff on a timeframe where I often can't get all the kinks out. I know lots of engineers chase perfection to the exclusion of all else but I'm not one of them. I know when something is "good enough" for mass production, and when it still needs a little work. The bean counters at big corporations weigh the cost of warranty failures versus lost profits by waiting for further development. Usually they come in on the side of losing fewer profits by prematurely releasing products before engineers say they're ready.
I hear you regarding the bean counters. Ford knew that a certain model of theirs' was prone to gas-tank explosions after being ruptured from a rear collision. Did nothing about it. Early on, a Ford engineer came up with a part that cost a few cents, literally that if retrofitted could have fixed the issue. But the bean counters decided it would be less expensive to pay out settlement claims to surviving family members than reto-fit the part. Ford executives went with the cheaper option. One of the reasons why I will NEVER own a Blue Oval vehicle again.
If you look at my posting history for a really long time I was hesitant to use lithium-ion batteries at all. I would often shun devices with built-in lithium batteries in favor of those which could take Eneloops. I figured let the early adopters be guinea pigs.
Exactly!
One of my concerns had nothing to do with safety, but rather calendar life. In the past, lithium cells would often lose capacity after a few years, even with low numbers of cycles. I had no desire to buy something which might be a brick in a few years. Lithium-ion finally reached a state of development where I feel comfortable using it, but only in the last 5 years or so. I still gravitate towards LFP for larger power storage applications for its inherent safety.
Just another reason why you did the right thing, and waited.
Sure, breathing in fumes from a vented lithium-ion battery is far worse per minute of exposure than breathing auto exhaust fumes. No argument there. However, cumulative exposure to auto exhaust causes millions of premature deaths worldwide.
Unfortunately, no way to tell if it's the fumes or other unhealthy issues combined that causes those deaths in tightly packed urban areas. But having someone report their horrific health issues after a cell vented in front of them, leaves no doubts which is more dangerous. Especially with a 10 year update in which their health has barely improved at all.
EVs solve a large portion of that problem, plus the noise pollution of ICEs. The latter isn't something to gloss over, either.
But they don't solve the problem. That's the big thing. Again, if we're talking about a solution that the masses can embrace to replace their ICE vehicles, EVs are not it! Massive lack of infrastructure for public charging. Impossible for apartment dwellers (where the vast majority of the general Public lives) to charge up an EV overnight. EVs don't solve the problem at all. Hybrids do. Noise pollution is aggravating but for the masses, re-fueling an ICE vehicle is easy as hell.
Funny you mentioned this. For starters, usually when I have something new in the pipeline I tell nobody about it until it's ready. I don't like to be rushed with people screaming at me to start making it before I'm ready. As for the rest, that's wonderful humanity for you. When people are sick, they'll grasp at straws for any cure. Do you remember the AIDs fiasco with Chapstick? For those not familiar Chapstick had "Aids prevention and cure of chapped lips" written on their products. Some idiots thought this meant it prevents and cures AIDS. I'm only guessing what part of their anatomy they probably applied Chapstick to. Human stupidity is boundless. It really is.
Sadly, forced to agree with you there. Don't forget everyone who chugged hand sanitizer during the height of the COVID19 epidemic.
I agree the execution has been flawed. For starters if we really want to phase out ICEs by 2035 or whenever, we should be upgrading the grid now, and adding generating capacity via solar, wind, and nuclear. That's just part one. Then we need to be installing lots of charging stations, particularly in large cities like New York with apartment dwellers lacking a driveway or garage to recharge.
To be honest, I don't think we can add enough outdoor charging stations to meet the demand. I still think hybrids will be the best solution for the masses living mostly in apartments. Those who own an actual house with a garage, should enjoy the benefits of EVs.
And then as I already mentioned, we should have been using mostly LFP batteries, except for vehicles which really, really needed the additional range of lithium-ion (that would be mostly commercial vehicles). Thankfully we're now heading this way with stuff like CATL's new 200 Wh/kg LFP battery. The good news is given the current small EV market share, by the time EVs are common most will be LFP or sodium-ion. The bad news is we'll have a small number of the dangerous ones around for a while.
Yes, headed that way now. But again, far too early. That's what worries me.
E-bike batteries are a much bigger problem on a per capita basis given that this market caters to the bottom. That means cheap cells and poor battery management.
The fact that the masses don't know the dangers involved is shocking.
The thing is hybrids don't really solve the problems EVs solve. You still burn fossil fuel, they still pollute. Plug-in hybrids partially fix things if they allow most short trips to be done on the battery, but at the expense of extra complexity.
From a pragmatic point of view, hybrids are the best solution for the masses instead of ICE vehicles. No, they are not perfect.... but they are a practical stop-gap measure. EVs don't solve the problems at all as far as the masses are concerned. An EV that can't be reliably recharged at home is a massive paperweight. A car that doesn't run, solves no issues at all. A plug-in hybrid? Why have something that gives you the worst of both worlds?
Well, you're right here but it represented a way to electrify an auto-based transportation system with far smaller batteries. The real solution to electrifying our transportation system would be electric trains and getting away from mass auto dependency. Unfortunately, that ship sailed when the government bankrolled massive highway construction/suburbanization in the 1950s while letting the railroads rot. Other countries electrified and upgraded their railways. For those countries the path to electrifying transportation is far easier.
True. The U.S. messed up in the 1950s.
Actually, many did ask for it. I for one am sick and tired of OPEC playing us like a harp from hell. Now they're making noise about lowering production to get oil prices up yet again. How many times have they pulled this nonsense? Oil companies are among the greediest going, along with being the worst polluters. So yeah, lots of us want to thumb our noses at them, tell them to stick their oil you know where. Getting rid of ICEs is a good start provided we execute EVs right (we largely haven't so far). When the $20K or lower EVs with LFP batteries hit the market then we'll be finally making stuff the masses can safely use.
People wanted it because they were lied to with regards to climate change. Which used to be global warming, but Mother Nature refused to cooperate. Before that it was the coming of the 2nd Ice-Age. But again, Mother Nature refused to cooperate. Policies should not be based on junk science and fear mongering. Yes, the Earth goes through cycles of heat and cold on a regular basis. Has nothing to do with Humanity nor the ICE vehicles we drive. But the masses were lied to believing otherwise.

I'm no fan of OPEC. And, I know individuals who own houses and are serious about getting an EV just to give OPEC and its members the finger. Though again, national policy should not be based on junk science, hidden political agends, and fear mongering directed towards the masses.
There's actually a dirty little secret why the automakers had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the EV business. They make lots of their money on spare parts. Battery fires notwithstanding, EVs just don't break often enough for their tastes. For the same reason car dealers claim nobody wants to buy EVs, but in reality they don't want to sell them because they're less profitable.
Not really much of a secret there. You buy a vehicle comprised of less moving parts, you have less parts that can fail/wear out. Less parts that need replacing years down the road. Thing is, car dealerships make a tiny amount of money selling or financing, or leasing cars. Roughly 75% of their profits come from their Service bays. Repairing cars, and replacing parts. Of course EVs are going to be less profitable for them. Who'd want to willingly give up roughly 75% of their income?
It's no secret that often the products which are best for the end user don't get made under a capitalist system without prodding by governments. As flawed as the execution of EVs has been, in the long run they're still a much better deal for the vast majority of people in terms of TCO, plus the reductions in air pollution. The keys are get rid of the dangerous batteries, bring the price at least to parity with ICE vehicles, if not lower, and install lots of charging stations.
I'm sorry but again, I can't agree. If we're talking about replacing ICE vehicles entirely among the masses.... EVs will never be the best option. Just by their very nature of needing to be plugged in. The masses literally have no where to plug them in to. If your options are an e-reader with a depleted battery and no place to charge up, you're better off with an old-fashioned book that requires turning the pages by hand. Thankfully with cars, we have Hybrids as a stop-gap measure until something pragmatic comes along. Right now EVs are not that pragmatic option.

Edit: Clarification.
 
Last edited:

Poppy

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
8,312
Location
Northern New Jersey
Ford knew that a certain model of theirs' was prone to gas-tank explosions after being ruptured from a rear collision. Did nothing about it. Early on, a Ford engineer came up with a part that cost a few cents, literally that if retrofitted could have fixed the issue. But the bean counters decided it would be less expensive to pay out settlement claims to surviving family members than reto-fit the part. Ford executives went with the cheaper option.
Please give some details
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,502
Location
Flushing, NY
No, there are some responsible ones. Though admittedly not too many. Still, there is a choice.

I hear you regarding the bean counters. Ford knew that a certain model of theirs' was prone to gas-tank explosions after being ruptured from a rear collision. Did nothing about it. Early on, a Ford engineer came up with a part that cost a few cents, literally that if retrofitted could have fixed the issue. But the bean counters decided it would be less expensive to pay out settlement claims to surviving family members than reto-fit the part. Ford executives went with the cheaper option. One of the reasons why I will NEVER own a Blue Oval vehicle again.

Exactly!

Just another reason why you did the right thing, and waited.

Unfortunately, no way to tell if it's the fumes or other unhealthy issues combined that causes those deaths in tightly packed urban areas. But having someone report their horrific health issues after a cell vented in front of them, leaves no doubts which is more dangerous. Especially with a 10 year update in which their health has barely improved at all.

But they don't solve the problem. That's the big thing. Again, if we're talking about a solution that the masses can embrace to replace their ICE vehicles, EVs are not it! Massive lack of infrastructure for public charging. Impossible for apartment dwellers (where the vast majority of the general Public lives) to charge up an EV overnight. EVs don't solve the problem at all. Hybrids do. Noise pollution is aggravating but for the masses, re-fueling an ICE vehicle is easy as hell.

Sadly, forced to agree with you there. Don't forget everyone who chugged hand sanitizer during the height of the COVID19 epidemic.

To be honest, I don't think we can add enough outdoor charging stations to meet the demand. I still think hybrids will be the best solution for the masses living mostly in apartments. Those who own an actual house with a garage, should enjoy the benefits of EVs.

Yes, headed that way now. But again, far too early. That's what worries me.

The fact that the masses don't know the dangers involved is shocking.

From a pragmatic point of view, hybrids are the best solution for the masses instead of ICE vehicles. No, they are not perfect.... but they are a practical stop-gap measure. EVs don't solve the problems at all as far as the masses are concerned. An EV that can't be reliably recharged at home is a massive paperweight. A car that doesn't run, solves no issues at all. A plug-in hybrid? Why have something that gives you the worst of both worlds?

True. The U.S. messed up in the 1950s.

People wanted it because they were lied to with regards to climate change. Which used to be global warming, but Mother Nature refused to cooperate. Before that it was the coming of the 2nd Ice-Age. But again, Mother Nature refused to cooperate. Policies should not be based on junk science and fear mongering. Yes, the Earth goes through cycles of heat and cold on a regular basis. Has nothing to do with Humanity nor the ICE vehicles we drive. But the masses were lied to believing otherwise.

I'm no fan of OPEC. And, I know individuals who own houses and are serious about getting an EV just to give OPEC and its members the finger. Though again, national policy should not be based on junk science, hidden political agends, and fear mongering directed towards the masses.

Not really much of a secret there. You buy a vehicle comprised of less moving parts, you have less parts that can fail/wear out. Less parts that need replacing years down the road. Thing is, car dealerships make a tiny amount of money selling or financing, or leasing cars. Roughly 75% of their profits come from their Service bays. Repairing cars, and replacing parts. Of course EVs are going to be less profitable for them. Who'd want to willingly give up roughly 75% of their income?

I'm sorry but again, I can't agree. If we're talking about replacing ICE vehicles entirely among the masses.... EVs will never be the best option. Just by their very nature of needing to be plugged in. The masses literally have no where to plug them in to. If your options are an e-reader with a depleted battery and no place to charge up, you're better off with an old-fashioned book that requires turning the pages by hand. Thankfully with cars, we have Hybrids as a stop-gap measure until something pragmatic comes along. Right now EVs are not that pragmatic option.

Edit: Clarification.
I mostly agree but since you were saying EVs will never be practical for apartment dwellers given the rate of rollout of public chargers I offer you this:

This all-new solar-powered 'city car' is coming to the U.S. — and it only costs $6,250

Besides being extremely affordable and very easy to park, the solar panels on top give it up to 19 miles of range on a sunny day. A fully charged battery takes you up to 62 miles. Yes, the top speed is only 28 mph, which means it's strictly for local urban use, not highways. However, for a lot of city dwellers who mostly drive short trips of a few miles, this vehicle is eminently practical. We could even encourage the use of cars like this by having less rigorous licensing/insurance requirements. Some European countries let people drive these types of vehicles with only a moped license. I assume insurance would be comparably cheap, perhaps a few hundred a year tops.

It's not the last word in the concept of EVs which recharge while parked, either. Solar panels may double in efficiency by 2030. So the same vehicle gains twice as many miles per day as before just being parked. No reason you can't upsize the concept to a regular sedan, either. A nice very aero sedan, better solar panels, larger area for panels, and you have a highway-capable vehicle which might gain over 50 miles per day just sitting in the sun.

Besides getting completely free "refueling", vehicles like these reduce the need for public chargers, grid upgrades to support them, and time spent waiting for the car to charge.

You heard it here first, but I think this is such a great idea that eventually as solar panels improve in efficiency/drop in cost you'll see them on every single electric vehicle. Why not? Over the life of the car the extra charging the panels give will more than pay for their extra cost.

BTW, most of my desire to have more EVs/get off fossil fuels in general stems from the facts they cause health issues, mining them is dirty business, plus they cost people a lot of money. For example, I spend on average $3K annually on fuel oil just to heat the house and make hot water. This year I kept the heat off until this week. When they filled the tank, it was only 90 gallons instead of close to 200 as usual. Screw them. I also block the registers with insulation in all the rooms but the living room, bathroom, and my bedroom. I'm only heating the rooms we're in (mom is in the living room on a hospital bed all the time). Again, screw them. I might start a thread to see if anyone knows DIY ways to better insulate old houses like mine. Eventually I'm electrifying the heat and hot water, but I'm waiting on drop-in replacements for hydronic heating systems so I can keep using the existing setup, other than changing the heat source from a boiler to a heat pump.
 
Last edited:

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,502
Location
Flushing, NY
Where you going to get all that electricity from? As I've said before, finish inventing the cart before you stick it in front of the horse and please please please make the cars self charging with easily swapped batteries. Do that and factories won't be able to build them fast enough.
China is already doing that. And they have lots of apartment dwellers.

Read my above post regarding putting solar panels on EVs. That fixes some of the need to generate more electricity. Reducing use with more efficient appliances and lighting also helps give surplus electricity for EV charging.

I agree. Solve the recharge time issue, get the cost on par with ICEs or less, and they'll be flying off dealer's lots. If the US auto industry doesn't do it, China's will, and they'll bury us in the process.
Those e-bikes blow up right regularly but they still sell faster than $3 martinis.
Unfortunately true. We're trying to push the e-bike industry towards LFP or sodium-ion. At least if they make cheap batteries with those chemistries the bike won't turn into a blow torch.
 

bykfixer

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
20,204
Location
John 3:16
IMG_2157.jpeg
 

Monocrom

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
19,551
Location
NYC
I mostly agree but since you were saying EVs will never be practical for apartment dwellers given the rate of rollout of public chargers I offer you this:

This all-new solar-powered 'city car' is coming to the U.S. — and it only costs $6,250
Solar power is not efficient at all. It's currently to the point that it might as well still be in its infancy. The only solar panels that are effective are the giant ones you put up on your roof. Or the still substantially huge ones that fold out and take up most of the backyard. Seriously, I bought that County Comm solar smartphone re-charger awhile back. (About the size of a Nook e-reader.) Oh, not to actually use! But as a prop in a Post-Apocalypse ASMR role-play video down the road for my other YouTube channel. Having a character pretend it's effective.
Besides being extremely affordable and very easy to park, the solar panels on top give it up to 19 miles of range on a sunny day. A fully charged battery takes you up to 62 miles. Yes, the top speed is only 28 mph, which means it's strictly for local urban use, not highways. However, for a lot of city dwellers who mostly drive short trips of a few miles, this vehicle is eminently practical.
I'm sorry but again, I don't buy those numbers. Solar panels just aren't THAT capable.... yet. I have full confidence that one day they will be. But that day is not today. I can see streets and avenues getting clogged with these solar-powered vehicles having run out of juice. Imagine the congestion!
We could even encourage the use of cars like this by having less rigorous licensing/insurance requirements. Some European countries let people drive these types of vehicles with only a moped license. I assume insurance would be comparably cheap, perhaps a few hundred a year tops.
Expect insurance companies to double the amount of Capital Hill lobbyists they currently have, to make sure no easing takes place. Too much profit in it for them to let that happen.
It's not the last word in the concept of EVs which recharge while parked, either. Solar panels may double in efficiency by 2030. So the same vehicle gains twice as many miles per day as before just being parked. No reason you can't upsize the concept to a regular sedan, either. A nice very aero sedan, better solar panels, larger area for panels, and you have a highway-capable vehicle which might gain over 50 miles per day just sitting in the sun.
Even double the efficiency, Solar is just not pragmatic. If anything, I'd advocate for EV public buses over city streets being littered with these cars that'll likely run out of power mid-trip.
Besides getting completely free "refueling", vehicles like these reduce the need for public chargers, grid upgrades to support them, and time spent waiting for the car to charge.
I agree with you completely! But the efficiency needs to easily be triple what it is now for this to be a good option. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to pay under $7K for a brand new, cheap-to-insure vehicle.... But I work nights!
You heard it here first, but I think this is such a great idea that eventually as solar panels improve in efficiency/drop in cost you'll see them on every single electric vehicle. Why not? Over the life of the car the extra charging the panels give will more than pay for their extra cost.
Oh, as an extra way to charge up batteries on EVs? Absolutely! But again, solar just isn't there yet.
BTW, most of my desire to have more EVs/get off fossil fuels in general stems from the facts they cause health issues, mining them is dirty business, plus they cost people a lot of money.
Unfortunately, those issues exist with the batteries used in EV vehicles. Specifically Nickel. Mining it, extracting it. Dirty, unhealthy business. And, Nickel is absolutely essential in the batteries used in EVs.
For example, I spend on average $3K annually on fuel oil just to heat the house and make hot water. This year I kept the heat off until this week. When they filled the tank, it was only 90 gallons instead of close to 200 as usual. Screw them. I also block the registers with insulation in all the rooms but the living room, bathroom, and my bedroom. I'm only heating the rooms we're in (mom is in the living room on a hospital bed all the time). Again, screw them. I might start a thread to see if anyone knows DIY ways to better insulate old houses like mine. Eventually I'm electrifying the heat and hot water, but I'm waiting on drop-in replacements for hydronic heating systems so I can keep using the existing setup, other than changing the heat source from a boiler to a heat pump.
Excellent what you're doing! I encourage you to create that thread. I'm willing to bet you get some excellent DIY suggestions.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,502
Location
Flushing, NY
I'm sorry but again, I don't buy those numbers. Solar panels just aren't THAT capable.... yet. I have full confidence that one day they will be. But that day is not today. I can see streets and avenues getting clogged with these solar-powered vehicles having run out of juice. Imagine the congestion!
The numbers actually seem semi-plausible. The car four 1.6 kW-hr battery packs. That's a total of 6.4 kW-hr. Claimed range on a full charge is 62 miles. So roughly 100 W-hr/mi. The solar panel on the roof appears to have an area of roughly 2 square meters. At present efficiencies of 21%, the panel can general about 400 watts in full sunlight. So let's call it a 400 watt panel. In our part of the country solar panels generate roughly 1 kW-hr annually for every installed watt. So this panel can generate up to 400 kW-hrs in a year. However, it's not at the ideal angle, so let's say half that. 200 kW-hrs per year and 100 W-hr/mi means 2,000 miles on solar alone. That's roughly 6 miles per day average. However, you're going to get less than the average in the winter, and more in the summer. You might gain 9 miles of range per day in the summer and 3 or 4 in the winter.

Note that the above calculations assumed the panel was only generating half what a 400 watt solar panel would. The plug for this car uses weasel words like "up to". So on a summer day if you assume full production from the solar panel you'll get up to 18 or 19 miles, but my calculations are more like what you'll get in the real world.

Now double the efficiency of the panels. Same car but in the real world you might average 12 miles per day of range just from solar.

The important thing to note here is solar was never meant to be the sole way for the batteries to charge. It supplements grid charge. If all you do are short errands then it may well be possible to get by on solar charging alone, but nobody is going to charge on solar alone, not check their battery charge, and end up stuck on the streets. When you have an EV, you automatically check your state of charge, same as you check your gas gauge in an ICE vehicle.

Another interesting thing mentioned was swappable battery packs. Great for apartment dwellers. a 1.6 kW-hr pack might weigh less than 25 pounds. And it can easily charge in a few hours off a regular 15A, 120VAC circuit. So you can carry the pack up to your apartment and charge it, similar to what people are already doing with e-bikes. Of course, I'd want the pack to be LFP in order to consider this safe. Packs light enough to carry inside nicely solve the charging issue for EVs meant only for city use with small batteries.

Taking the solar concept further, with a sedan you might be able to have 8 square meters of solar panels if you cover the roof, hood, and truck. Once we're at 40% efficiency that's roughly 3.2 kW of solar panels. Using the same line of thought, in the real world that might give you about 1,600 kW-hrs annually. Fortunately, energy use per mile doesn't go up proportional to size or weight. Many EV sedans use around 200 W-hr/mi. So in a year this hypothetical vehicle can gain 8,000 miles just from solar charging alone. That's like half the miles an average user drives.
 

Monocrom

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
19,551
Location
NYC
The numbers actually seem semi-plausible. The car four 1.6 kW-hr battery packs. That's a total of 6.4 kW-hr. Claimed range on a full charge is 62 miles. So roughly 100 W-hr/mi. The solar panel on the roof appears to have an area of roughly 2 square meters. At present efficiencies of 21%, the panel can general about 400 watts in full sunlight. So let's call it a 400 watt panel. In our part of the country solar panels generate roughly 1 kW-hr annually for every installed watt. So this panel can generate up to 400 kW-hrs in a year. However, it's not at the ideal angle, so let's say half that. 200 kW-hrs per year and 100 W-hr/mi means 2,000 miles on solar alone. That's roughly 6 miles per day average. However, you're going to get less than the average in the winter, and more in the summer. You might gain 9 miles of range per day in the summer and 3 or 4 in the winter.
Honestly, I'm concerned that the numbers are fudged. Everyone on CPF knows what that's like. (Emitter vs. Out the front lumens numbers.) Also, what happens if you have a few days of pouring rain? Employers don't want to hear you're not coming in because the Sun didn't come out. I guess it would depend on the region of America, the city, and how well Public Transit works. Heck even in NYC, there are still major urban neighborhoods outside of Manhattan where (aside from Rush hour) Public Transit is a pathetic joke! Imagine the issues with cities not as big as ours. I love the idea of solar-powered cars. But I fear yet another example of a tech. concept released too early to the masses.
Note that the above calculations assumed the panel was only generating half what a 400 watt solar panel would. The plug for this car uses weasel words like "up to". So on a summer day if you assume full production from the solar panel you'll get up to 18 or 19 miles, but my calculations are more like what you'll get in the real world.

Now double the efficiency of the panels. Same car but in the real world you might average 12 miles per day of range just from solar.
Another issue.... I know folks who easily commute to work far more than 12 miles each way. Struggling a bit to see who this vehicle's customer base would be. Stay-at-home mom needing to make a weekly trip to the grocery store? Elderly, retired person still wants to occasionally go out?
The important thing to note here is solar was never meant to be the sole way for the batteries to charge. It supplements grid charge. If all you do are short errands then it may well be possible to get by on solar charging alone, but nobody is going to charge on solar alone, not check their battery charge, and end up stuck on the streets. When you have an EV, you automatically check your state of charge, same as you check your gas gauge in an ICE vehicle.
But then it seems Solar would be pointless. These vehicles make EVs look more pragmatic.
Another interesting thing mentioned was swappable battery packs. Great for apartment dwellers. a 1.6 kW-hr pack might weigh less than 25 pounds. And it can easily charge in a few hours off a regular 15A, 120VAC circuit. So you can carry the pack up to your apartment and charge it, similar to what people are already doing with e-bikes. Of course, I'd want the pack to be LFP in order to consider this safe. Packs light enough to carry inside nicely solve the charging issue for EVs meant only for city use with small batteries.
That definitely sounds a lot better. But brings up the issue of Utilities getting raised. Landlords will despise the idea, and raise prices. Some units while no longer be affordable for renters to continue to live in.
Taking the solar concept further, with a sedan you might be able to have 8 square meters of solar panels if you cover the roof, hood, and truck. Once we're at 40% efficiency that's roughly 3.2 kW of solar panels. Using the same line of thought, in the real world that might give you about 1,600 kW-hrs annually. Fortunately, energy use per mile doesn't go up proportional to size or weight. Many EV sedans use around 200 W-hr/mi. So in a year this hypothetical vehicle can gain 8,000 miles just from solar charging alone. That's like half the miles an average user drives.
Half? Most folks easily put 10K miles a year on their vehicles. Average lease rates often get bumped to 12K miles a year so customers avoid huge over-mileage per year penalties. Numbers are one thing. Oftentimes, claimed numbers for EVs fall short in the real world. I'm open to the idea of solar-powered vehicles. But I'll happily let others Beta-test them, first.
 

Poppy

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
8,312
Location
Northern New Jersey
So in a year this hypothetical vehicle can gain 8,000 miles just from solar charging alone. That's like half the miles an average user drives.

Half? Most folks easily put 10K miles a year on their vehicles. Average lease rates often get bumped to 12K miles a year so customers avoid huge over-mileage per year penalties.
LOL Monochrome, check your math.
8,000 miles is half of 16,000 miles.
 

bykfixer

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
20,204
Location
John 3:16
The numbers actually seem semi-plausible. The car four 1.6 kW-hr battery packs. That's a total of 6.4 kW-hr. Claimed range on a full charge is 62 miles. So roughly 100 W-hr/mi. The solar panel on the roof appears to have an area of roughly 2 square meters. At present efficiencies of 21%, the panel can general about 400 watts in full sunlight. So let's call it a 400 watt panel. In our part of the country solar panels generate roughly 1 kW-hr annually for every installed watt. So this panel can generate up to 400 kW-hrs in a year. However, it's not at the ideal angle, so let's say half that. 200 kW-hrs per year and 100 W-hr/mi means 2,000 miles on solar alone. That's roughly 6 miles per day average. However, you're going to get less than the average in the winter, and more in the summer. You might gain 9 miles of range per day in the summer and 3 or 4 in the winter.

Note that the above calculations assumed the panel was only generating half what a 400 watt solar panel would. The plug for this car uses weasel words like "up to". So on a summer day if you assume full production from the solar panel you'll get up to 18 or 19 miles, but my calculations are more like what you'll get in the real world.

Now double the efficiency of the panels. Same car but in the real world you might average 12 miles per day of range just from solar.

The important thing to note here is solar was never meant to be the sole way for the batteries to charge. It supplements grid charge. If all you do are short errands then it may well be possible to get by on solar charging alone, but nobody is going to charge on solar alone, not check their battery charge, and end up stuck on the streets. When you have an EV, you automatically check your state of charge, same as you check your gas gauge in an ICE vehicle.

Another interesting thing mentioned was swappable battery packs. Great for apartment dwellers. a 1.6 kW-hr pack might weigh less than 25 pounds. And it can easily charge in a few hours off a regular 15A, 120VAC circuit. So you can carry the pack up to your apartment and charge it, similar to what people are already doing with e-bikes. Of course, I'd want the pack to be LFP in order to consider this safe. Packs light enough to carry inside nicely solve the charging issue for EVs meant only for city use with small batteries.

Taking the solar concept further, with a sedan you might be able to have 8 square meters of solar panels if you cover the roof, hood, and truck. Once we're at 40% efficiency that's roughly 3.2 kW of solar panels. Using the same line of thought, in the real world that might give you about 1,600 kW-hrs annually. Fortunately, energy use per mile doesn't go up proportional to size or weight. Many EV sedans use around 200 W-hr/mi. So in a year this hypothetical vehicle can gain 8,000 miles just from solar charging alone. That's like half the miles an average user drives.
Gives a whole new meaning to the term sunroof. 👍
 
Top