[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by RM7

If this were anywhere near the problem you are making it out to be, airliners would be bursting into flames midflight all over the place...with so many batteries on board.

They did, I believe millions died. I clearly remember when that was THE thing.... for like 12 sec. That's why I would never own a cellphone and anyone who comes to my house better leave their ticking time bomb outside.

[PhaceN52]

Originally Posted by RM7

If this were anywhere near the problem you are making it out to be, airliners would be bursting into flames midflight all over the place...with so many batteries on board.

If you're not referring to passengers smartphone batteries, that are not as near as energy dense in terms of voltage and amperes as an EV battery, Airbus A320 for example still uses nickel cadmium units for onboard electronics and emergency supply, and cargo airlines use special closed containers when shipping lithium batteries. Wonder why... /s

[BGM-M3COMP]

Originally Posted by gblansten

I just want to remind everyone that it is highly unlikely that any opinions will change regardless of the cogency of your arguments in this thread.

This thread isn't a matter of sharing opinions though.

It's for the anit-ev people who wanna bitch and pull whatever excuse out of their balloon knot that EV's will not work. But it's already working now and progression is the key to success that's why when 2035 comes they'll see. 2030 i believe is when they'll start to see how serious this is.

Like i love my ICE too but i really can't wait for this to happen to upset others

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by BGM-M3COMP

This thread isn't a matter of sharing opinions though
Like i love my ICE too but i really can't wait for this to happen to upset others

Typical Cult like behavior. No one has denied your right to have all the EV's you want. It really isn't about the environment, is it? It's a cult like need to control others and force your agenda on others.

[G MONEY]

Originally Posted by BGM-M3COMP

This thread isn't a matter of sharing opinions though.

It's for the anit-ev people who wanna bitch and pull whatever excuse out of their balloon knot that EV's will not work. But it's already working now and progression is the key to success that's why when 2035 comes they'll see. 2030 i believe is when they'll start to see how serious this is.

Like i love my ICE too but i really can't wait for this to happen to upset others

Yawn X50

[KRS_SN]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

If that's what you think, go for it. Your opinions of me have no bearing on the greater debate at hand.

You epitomize the notion that this green EV push is about money and virtue signaling, not saving the planet.

This is the reason so many in "the middle" are skeptical about all these great green programs. You don't have solar for being green, you have it so you can save money on power and sell any surplus power at on-peak rates. You charge your car at night using fossil generation as you "buy back" that green surplus because it's cheaper. Problem is : what you buy back is not green. You are still part of the problem while touting your green status. Even if you sold more power than you used - including the fossil power that you buy back at night to charge your EV, you are still part of the problem- you are consuming fossil energy. And society is being forced to subsidize your model. This is one of the reasons why people are getting frustrated with subsidizing these technologies.

The only thing I would like to add is that EV buyers suffer horrendous depreciation often >1k per month or in the case of a taycan >2k per month. So they are paying for their own folly.


The question is also if Joe public is losing money by subsidising EV and if EV buyers are losing money with crazy depreciation who is gaining out of all of this?

[PhaceN52]

Originally Posted by BGM-M3COMP

This thread isn't a matter of sharing opinions though.

It's for the anit-ev people who wanna bitch and pull whatever excuse out of their balloon knot that EV's will not work. But it's already working now and progression is the key to success that's why when 2035 comes they'll see. 2030 i believe is when they'll start to see how serious this is.

Like i love my ICE too but i really can't wait for this to happen to upset others

Troll master

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by PhaceN52

Troll master

He likes to make blanket statements that really add nothing to the conversation. It was kind of nice that he wasn't posting here for a while. I used to reply to him but gave up when it was clear the only reply you'd get was some garbage.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Hmmmm... Looks like the ICE is the answer.

Amazing the stuff people figured out before computers...

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

The only thing I would like to add is that EV buyers suffer horrendous depreciation often >1k per month or in the case of a taycan >2k per month. So they are paying for their own folly.


The question is also if Joe public is losing money by subsidising EV and if EV buyers are losing money with crazy depreciation who is gaining out of all of this?

That's simple. The wealthy with heavy positions in these "green" companies. The same wealthy that have the money to grease politicians to divert public funding and to set public policy forcing an artificial market demand. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if many of these politicians have large investments in these companies.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by PhaceN52

If you're not referring to passengers smartphone batteries, that are not as near as energy dense in terms of voltage and amperes as an EV battery, Airbus A320 for example still uses nickel cadmium units for onboard electronics and emergency supply, and cargo airlines use special closed containers when shipping lithium batteries. Wonder why... /s

I don't know if you've noticed. Any battery shipped now has to have a visible warning sticker on it indicating it's a hazmat. These stickers weren't there when NiCd batteries where the only game in town. They only showed up when Lithium batteries hit the market and only after various fire incidents happened. When I bought a product that uses a LiPo battery, I was sold and pretty much given no option not to purchase a fire resistant pouch. It's for putting the LiPo battery inside during charging in the event it catches fire.

[BGM-M3COMP]

Originally Posted by PhaceN52

Troll master

Works every time.

And you guys are still in for a treat come 2035.


That’s the funny part lmaooooo

[David70]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

How many of those ICE fires are fuel tanks starting themselves on fire?

How many ICE cars are there compared to EV's, and what is the average age of each.

Come to the discussion with logic and facts please. It will be an endless circle jerk no doubt, since neither platform is free of risk/danger.

You are actually pointing out exactly what I keep saying on the endless articles of EV fires and the fear of EV fire posts. I keep saying that without any data it is meaningless. Article posted about an EV fire, I posted an article on a gasoline fire and said without data on how likely they are to happen they are both pretty meaningless.

Interesting you are telling me to come to the discussion with "logic and facts", how come you haven't said the same over and over for the endless articles or "fear of fire"?

I have yet to see any data showing that an EV is any more dangerous than an ICE. I have never said the EV is more or less dangerous.

The ICE platform doesn't put the ignition source inside the fuel source. EV's have a unique trait, the fuel source is the ignition source in the case of battery fires.

OK? The ICE has both in the same compartment, most cars even have an electric pump for gasoline, all have the gas/electric separated by pretty simple fuel lines and plastic surrounding the electric. Come up with anything proving one is more dangerous than the other and you will have something.


From my previous posts

The post above of a random EV fire means nothing,....

I agree putting them out is a problem but without data it's just a never post of news articles about an individual fire.

We can continue but none of this means much of anything without actual data. Virtually never ending supply of my replies on ICE fires if people want them.

Still interested in seeing any data that shows this is a problem worth worrying about or big enough to change rates.

Your theory is this number will cause insurance rates to go up but I haven't seen anything to show the extent of the problem. Post above has the guy guess the rate and the cost.

Nice headline grabbing article but " a ton of disabled EV's" - what does this mean? Again, any data to prove anything?

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by BGM-M3COMP

And you guys are still in for a treat come 2035.
That’s the funny part lmaooooo

You're in for a treat when you learn that your EV has depreciated more that Hunter Biden's art work. (too soon?)

It will also be a hoot when your Tesla dealer informs you need a new battery and it will be $16,500.00 plus labor. lmaooooo

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by RM7

If this were anywhere near the problem you are making it out to be, airliners would be bursting into flames midflight all over the place...with so many batteries on board.

airliners don't use big batteries for main propulsion.

Have there been no battery fires on airplanes? Yes, there have, some fatal. Numerous ones have caused emergency landings and serious injuries. And these are just small batteries. They are now a safety regulated hazardous cargo. Just like other hazardous things.

[BGM-M3COMP]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

You're in for a treat when you learn that your EV has depreciated more that Hunter Biden's art work. (too soon?)

It will also be a hoot when your Tesla dealer informs you need a new battery and it will be $16,500.00 plus labor. lmaooooo

That’s why you lease not buy.

Who the fuck keeps cars past 100k lmaoooooooooooo

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Murf the Surf

He likes to make blanket statements that really add nothing to the conversation. It was kind of nice that he wasn't posting here for a while. I used to reply to him but gave up when it was clear the only reply you'd get was some garbage.

That one isn't far off though. People were losing their **** years ago when Toyota introduced the Prius...with a BATTERY. There was no shortage of predictions of terror and apocalypse due to this, with projections of dead Priuses everywhere, how it would fail completely, how they couldn't be repaired, how it was going to take their jerbs, etc. People are losing their **** again. Calm down honey, it's not going to change overnight, you'll be ok.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

airliners don't use big batteries for main propulsion.

Have there been no battery fires on airplanes? Yes, there have, some fatal. Numerous ones have caused emergency landings and serious injuries. And these are just small batteries. They are now a safety regulated hazardous cargo. Just like other hazardous things.

They have batteries all over the place though, internal batteries (Li Ion) and the ones people bring in on their luggage, their ipads, phones, all sorts of other devices. If these were such a big problem, they'd be popping off each day, hell probably on every airplane due to the sheer number of them. But it's not. It's a concern, just like many other things...it's just not the end of the world. I also deal with cargo airplanes that are transporting thousands of these things. It's just not the end of the world scenario you are preaching.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by David70

I keep saying that without any data it is meaningless.

Article posted about an EV fire, I posted an article on a gasoline fire and said without data on how likely they are to happen they are both pretty meaningless.

Strange, no mention of needing data from your post:

Originally Posted by David70

Last month a tank trailer hauling roughly 9000 gallons of gasoline shutdown I95 after it burned, killing the driver and causing an overpass to collapse.

^ you are just adding fire to the circle-jerk debate about "gas-vs-electricity", without a stated contextual purpose, and seemingly knowing they are both dangerous.

Yes, they are both dangerous. most of us here already know that. Thing is, gas tanks don't start themselves on fire, batteries can and do.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by BGM-M3COMP

That’s why you lease not buy.

Who the fuck keeps cars past 100k lmaoooooooooooo

That's a real green mentality there. And those that prefer to keep cars past 100k are typically ones that don't care to be burning money needlessly.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by RM7

They have batteries all over the place though, internal batteries (Li Ion) and the ones people bring in on their luggage, their ipads, phones, all sorts of other devices. If these were such a big problem, they'd be popping off each day, hell probably on every airplane due to the sheer number of them. But it's not. It's a concern, just like many other things...it's just not the end of the world. I also deal with cargo airplanes that are transporting thousands of these things. It's just not the end of the world scenario you are preaching.

There is "gas" in airplanes too, if it were so dangerous, those would be blowing up all the time as well if we are to believe the "whataboutisim" being used in an attempt to minimize the fear of spontaneous EV battery fires, because "ICE cars burn too". Of course they do, just not spontaneously due to the gas tank.


I've preached no end of the world scenario, stop with the projecting.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by BGM-M3COMP

That’s why you lease not buy.

Who the fuck keeps cars past 100k lmaoooooooooooo

yea disposable society. Let's just make a rule all these EV's get shipped to 3rd world countries after the end of the lease so they can figure out how to "recycle" them. Out of sight, out of mind, we all still get to feel so green.