GOLFMK8
GOLFMK7
GOLFMK6
GOLFMKV

More EVs Catching on Fire

Corprin

Autocross Champion
Saw an EV pull into a gas station that was smoking. Owner opened the hood and it was on fire. They got a fire extinguisher and that didn't do anything. I didn't wait around to see what would happen. And why the hell would you pull into a gas station knowing your car is on fire. I think his next stop was a fireworks stand and a magnesium plant 😂
I saw this car at the next stop, port of Beruit, right?
 

The Fed

Old Guys Rule
I just watched an ID.3 road test video on Youtube from Carwow. I believe the narrator said it was carbon neutral in manufacturing. LOL, like any car is. I would buy a Tesla if their parts and service model was better. And the high-performance performance options were cheaper. And they couldn't catch fire. I don't see all that happening anytime soon. Or ever.

California and their proposed EV mandate will be an issue for us all, since many states follow California's emissions standards. Funny that states in Northeast like New York and Pennsylvania are on board, because they obviously won't care you lose half or more of your range in the winter. I'm still waiting to know how California is going to have enough energy to charge all of the EVs when they don't have enough to power to run everyone's air conditioning now.

About the lithium-ion jump box, I have one. The battery bulged out of its case after a couple of years. The manufacturer told me it was safe. Uh, no. The warranty was only for a year so I had to buy another. Seems others have had the same problem.
 
Last edited:

Thumper1

Drag Racing Champion
Nice fantasy world. You could stand to understand the upstream impact of the petrochemical world a little better. This is a good place to start:


There are certainly impacts to mining, assembling and shipping heavy metals for batteries, but to single those out and ignore the impact of oil extraction, transportation, refining and distribution is certainly lopsided. There are costs of allowing people to have the freedom of movement that the current world provides, but full life cycle analysis of even my favored method, a bicycle, is not all that favorable. The total impact of my titanium bike is amazingly large, from the extraction of material, to the gasses used to weld it to the hydraulic fluid in the brakes, etc. And my carbon bike is even worse. Aside from walking, and eating a locally grown, vegan diet, there's very little way to not negatively impact the environment.
I live in no fantasy world, unlike those pushing the "green" solution. The point is the mining of these rare Earth metals is being offered as a SOLUTION to the mining of the fossil fuels. The only ones IGNORING the impacts of the supply chain are those advocating for their cash cow solution and implying that the building solar panels makes grass grow and bunnies frolic instead of the reality which is this lake of poison built on slave labor.

At any point did I say fossil fuels were CLEAN and did no damage? No. That is a fallacy argument used to try to deflect and avoid the realities of the poison from "green" power. The POINT is that when people talk about their "zero emissions" cars.......which require even more natural resources and energy to produce than a normal fossil fuel vehicle (to make an EV you fist have to build a car, the same as every other car. Then you have to build the EV elements and install those).......they are ignorant. The same as the morons who talk about "free" solar power.....ignoring not only the environmental impacts of making them but also the $10-20k cost of installing them. The organized theft through taxes to pay for credits helps with this misdirection and lies.

I also never said anything about going vegan and walking, I am NOT one of the Greta loons advocating for us to all go live in caves with no AC or heat because it's better for the environment. My point, which you clearly missed, is that taking current modern society as an accepted requirement (with continued advancement not retraction of society) if fossil fuel energy does X damage to the environment when evaluating any changes to our methods is it really a solution if we do something different that just as much damage if not MORE to the environment? Still we also have to address that the poison from fossil fuels is more or less spread out. We drill and frack for oil and NG here in the US, so we have to deal personally with any damage. We burn coal and NG here for electricity so we have to face and address the pollution first hand. However, when we install solar panels on our house or plow over an entire desert for them we can sit back and take a deep breath of clean air and pat ourselves on the back. Meanwhile, in China, some little kid takes in a deep breath of black air and drinks brown water as the price for that clean air. Is that right? Is that morally defensible?

No one wants to have that conversation though, they want everyone to just spend trillions of dollars to implement their magical solution (which they then profit on while calling oil companies evil for making money) without ever having an honest and open discussion. Which is another elephant in the room we can't even address because no one wants to honestly debate the issue. If we could have the conversation with honest facts and we come to the conclusion that these green solutions damage the environment just a little less we could then look at the cost. Is it worth spending TRILLIONS of dollars to gain a 3% advantage? This leads to the real question, which is what else could we do with those trillions of dollars? Think of the advances in space travel, medicine, or even just the assistance to struggling countries (as voluntary charity, not forced redistribution) that could be accomplished with that money.

Talk to me about the green solutions when they want to build a EV battery plant in YOUR town. It's all well and good when someone else is dying for your lifestyle, it's a different story when you have to take the hit isn't it?
 

bentin

Autocross Champion
Funny, Tesla is coming to my town. While they're obviously not producing batteries, it's still going to have an environmental impact.

I don't think many, if any folks in the industry see it as anything more than a transference of one dirty solution to another dirty solution (of course there are plenty of ignorant owners, just as we saw with Prius drivers starting nearly two decades ago.) The largest difference is that we've realized all of the efficiencies from petro chemicals and there are still many unrealized benefits that could develop in the battery and storage realm.

So do you continue forward with an industry that sees ever worse solutions to extracting limited resources or move to one that has the potential (mostly as yet unrealized) to be a cleaner, more sustainable immediate term solution? I don't think that many would make a strong argument that EV's are the end goal, I think it's more of the first pivot to take us away from our reliance on petro chemicals, at least for individual transportation. We'll still have heavy ships running on bunker fuel and airplanes operating on avgas, both of which have a much larger impact than cars and commercial trucks.
 

Thumper1

Drag Racing Champion
So do you continue forward with an industry that sees ever worse solutions to extracting limited resources or move to one that has the potential (mostly as yet unrealized) to be a cleaner, more sustainable immediate term solution?
Again you rely on misdirection and fallacy to argue your point. I have to ask, do you honestly believe that lithium is not a limited supply? How about the cadium and tellurium and a dozen other rare metals needed for solar panels? How is fracking for oil an ever worsening solution but fracking for lithium is just fine? How is the run off pools for an oil drill site ever worsening....but this black lake of death in China is just fine????? All resources are limited, some more than others. Not to mention we have been told for 40 years we're running out of oil in the ground, yet they keep finding more and reserves they estimated at 100 million barrels hit that target and are still producing.

Seriously man......

I don't think that many would make a strong argument that EV's are the end goal, I think it's more of the first pivot to take us away from our reliance on petro chemicals, at least for individual transportation.
LMAO

Great, that's awesome, so now your argument is that we are poisoning the planet and disrupting society for a TEMPORARY solution. Well that always ends well doesn't it. So again, how about we sink our efforts and money into the ACTUAL solution, maybe get there sooner, rather than wasting decades creating toxic messes in the misguided cause of avoiding toxic messes.
 

bentin

Autocross Champion
Remind me how we're disrupting society with EV's? Your argument appears to just be live with the devil we know rather than try to find a better solution. I suppose we should just shut the schools, we've got it all figured out.

I'm not involved in politics, but I think it's worth discussing the geopolitical impact of moving your reliance on oil from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela to a single entity in China. I'm not really a fan of putting our reliance in a single country, but it's an interesting move, none the less. I do think that Tesla is obviously pivoting toward Chinese production of the complete car, Volvo is already there, and with the only source of the largest component of any EV, this is going to become the norm.

You mistake my interest in EV's as abject support of them, yet I still drive an ICE. We're at a point where ICE and EV are the only viable options. Hydrogen continues to be a pipe dream and requires more energy to create the fuel than it actually offers. The opportunity of advancements in battery tech and efficiencies in motor technology certainly has the opportunity to greatly reduce the net environmental impact of personal transportation. I do give you that solar panels seem challenged, at least in the non commercial applications. But I also live in an area that gets more than half of our electricity from renewable sources, yet over 10% is coal, so it's hard to say that running an EV here is a good solution, even ignoring the production of said EV. I do think that there are a number of places in this country that make no sense to have an EV.
 

Thumper1

Drag Racing Champion
Remind me how we're disrupting society with EV's?
You mean besides the facts I have already presented here that you have categorically refused to actually address? The lakes of toxins, the clouds of poisonous smoke, and the impact on the economy from the money sinkhole put into paying for them? I don't drive an EV, and I have never used a solar panel.......yet I have paid for millions of them through taxation to fund government hand outs to subsidize the economically unsound industry. Corporations have dumped billions into the industry to virtue signal for the ignorant masses. Billions of dollars that could have gone to more jobs or tangible benefits.


Your argument appears to just be live with the devil we know rather than try to find a better solution. I suppose we should just shut the schools, we've got it all figured out.
Nope, my argument is to have the actual argument. It's a very basic concept and yet you continue to ignore or abstract it. No one is having the argument about the consequences of EVs and green power. The science is settled, it's good, butterflies and kittens. Sit down and shut up and be labeled a lunatic to dare question them. All you have done is used inaccurate talking points to attack fossil fuels, meanwhile unwilling or unable to actual defend the green industry. Throwing shade at the opposing position is not in actuality a form of support for your own position. Claiming your opponent kills cats is not a defense of why you kill dogs............

You're position appears to be the same. Your constant reliance on fallacies and mis-statement of fact does nothing to have an open discussion but rather seeks to shut it down. Ironically, as always, the position those wanting to shut down discussion try to attribute to their opponents, of shutting schools down, is actually their primary tactic. You claim I want to ignore finding a better solution? In my very last post I suggested FINDING A BETTER SOLUTION. You are the one who has no interest in finding a better solution, you seem simply happy enough with changing devils and smugly stating different is better because it is.

So enjoy............
 

bentin

Autocross Champion
Amusingly, I went to college for an EE/Physics major, but realized that EV's weren't really feasible at the time. But keep making assumptions and trying to posit a false strawman without offering any solutions. Saying "a better solution" isn't actually providing a better solution. What do you have in mind, use actual examples of feasible technology. Like I said, it isn't hydrogen.

Buyer preferences all point to removing sizable efficiencies in ICE cars. My first car was a CRX Si that had 108 hp and got high 20's in the city. My current car makes much more power but still gets the same mileage. And that's with the current one being handicapped with a manual. Transmissions are wildly more efficient these days, motors get up to operating temp much faster, catalysts are cleaner and while the EU isn't interested, diesels are cleaner and biofuels are more readily available.

But the consumer fucks all of that up by demanding ever larger SUV's that sit higher, have higher drag coefficients and frontal area, generally with much heavier tires and wheels. So the fleet average barely changes over time because the technology is more efficient but the size and weight have rocketed up. So in light of consumer trends, how do you address the problem? We had targeted fleet MPG goals with less provision for heavy trucks and SUV's, but that was overturned. All signs point towards consumers not being interested in creating an actual improvement. Yet EV's with constant torque don't have much less issue dealing with porky cars.

To your point about sad pools of heavy metals, I'm still going with the argument that full life cycle, from extraction, transport, refining, distribution and finally consumer usage, there isn't an easy answer to say that it's cleaner or worse than current battery methods, but there's absolutely opportunity for the battery side to improve and nearly no room for oil to change, aside from possibly worse if you're going to depend on fracking and environmental impact related to that.
 

GTIfan99

Autocross Champion
LMAO

I will continue to point out if we want to regulate or avoid things that some people are too stupid to do right we would all be wearing white jumpsuits in padded cells.

Kinda says something when the only states that won't allow their own citizens to use fuel pumps is NJ and OR........kinda says something about the population? :ROFLMAO:

The one difference if we're being accurate is that despite what Hollywood would have us think cars don't explode when involved in a crash. In fact, a gas tank can take a pretty good hit and not rupture, where if you hit a lithium battery pack with the same force it almost certainly will burn. The battery doesn't even have to take a direct hit to cause internal shorts. Oh, and if a gasoline tank does burst into flames it does a pretty good job of not bursting into flames again a week later. EV battery packs have a nasty habit of doing that.

FYI, most EVs aren't using nickel anymore, they use lithium which isn't any cleaner but it does provide even more irony when you see some idiot in a Prius with an anti-fracking bumper sticker. Since the same technology used in fracking is how they get lithium.

All anyone really needs to know to really ponder this technological marvel we've created of EVs and using them as a solution is to pay attention to the supply chain. We seem committed to following the money when fighting terrorism but seem unconcerned to follow where our technology comes from. How exactly is a Prius less damaging when a requirement for it to even be put to use is heavy equipment hauling lithium out of the ground, heavy equipment moving it then to a port, heavy equipment then powering the ship to take it to China, heavy equipment then offloading it, heavy equipment moving it to the plant, the energy needed to run the plant.......then shipping the finished product to another factory, then to the assembly plant, and then shipping the final product.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth

When evaluating any solution to any problem an intelligent person always considers ALL aspects of the solution. The faux environmentalists and 'green' millionaires seem to enjoy their deception as they push these things down our throats. Many are complicit in their greed for money and power while their minions are just blissful ignorant. Absolutely no one has addressed the "carbon footprint" of how their 'solutions' are made. Nuclear power is constantly decried as evil and toxic, and yet no one is out there protesting the toxic time bomb required for the solution.

When the US, France, Britain, and Germany all start to allow sites like this one to run unhindered in their own countries we can talk about the actual ROI of EVs, solar panels, and the like. However, as long as we look the other way while parts of our planet are literally rotted and burned away so we can walk around smug and lecturing how "I drive a Prius, I'm actually HEALING Mother Earth!" we really can't even have the conversation. Don't even get me started on the Apple-tards waxing poetic about how bad corporations are and evil gas companies while they trade up to the new iPhone every 6 months.

We really do live in a pre-dystopian age right now, for all the indignation and red faced outrage from those who assure us they are compassionate and love all people, the green mass are actually the villains from every dystopian story oppressing the people who live in filth and squalor while they live above it all smug in how benevolent they are. As long as it's the Chinese, South American, and African people that are poisoned and worked in deplorable conditions little Greta can sail the globe, making her angry face, telling us how evil we are for not embracing the 'solution'.
In NJ, it seems a hold over from the Italian practice, which isn't about safety, but creating jobs for the unwashed masses.
 

GTIfan99

Autocross Champion
You mean besides the facts I have already presented here that you have categorically refused to actually address? The lakes of toxins, the clouds of poisonous smoke, and the impact on the economy from the money sinkhole put into paying for them? I don't drive an EV, and I have never used a solar panel.......yet I have paid for millions of them through taxation to fund government hand outs to subsidize the economically unsound industry. Corporations have dumped billions into the industry to virtue signal for the ignorant masses. Billions of dollars that could have gone to more jobs or tangible benefits.




Nope, my argument is to have the actual argument. It's a very basic concept and yet you continue to ignore or abstract it. No one is having the argument about the consequences of EVs and green power. The science is settled, it's good, butterflies and kittens. Sit down and shut up and be labeled a lunatic to dare question them. All you have done is used inaccurate talking points to attack fossil fuels, meanwhile unwilling or unable to actual defend the green industry. Throwing shade at the opposing position is not in actuality a form of support for your own position. Claiming your opponent kills cats is not a defense of why you kill dogs............

You're position appears to be the same. Your constant reliance on fallacies and mis-statement of fact does nothing to have an open discussion but rather seeks to shut it down. Ironically, as always, the position those wanting to shut down discussion try to attribute to their opponents, of shutting schools down, is actually their primary tactic. You claim I want to ignore finding a better solution? In my very last post I suggested FINDING A BETTER SOLUTION. You are the one who has no interest in finding a better solution, you seem simply happy enough with changing devils and smugly stating different is better because it is.

So enjoy............

If that bothers you, you're going to shit your pants to learn how much the government has subsidized oil and coal over the last 100 years. lol.

I get it though, people were angry when stupid, dangerous, and loud cars displaced horses and buggies. The good news is, there's nothing you can do about it, the government will continue to subsidize electric cars and solar, they will eventually fix the range and charging issues and increase energy density, whether that takes 5 years or 50 years, and all of our internal combustion vehicles will be antique pieces for hobbyist and new residential will produce their own electricity in most regions. Oh the horror. lol

So enjoy...........
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WAP

GTIfan99

Autocross Champion
And I'll add that I don't drive an electric car, because I don't think they're ready for prime time, but I have doubled my families fleet of cars gas mileage in the last 10 years and cut the number of miles we drive drastically by moving closer to work and negotiating more remote work. It's not like we have to kill the planet as fast as we can while we wait for technology to progress to the point it needs to in order to drastically cut emissions. We could also have a rational national energy policy that didn't think coal was part of our future energy plans too, but that's another story.
 
Top