And because hydrogen leaks out of tanks and causes metal tanks be become brittle.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Who has or is planning to get an electric car / EV Talk
- Thread starter PracticalMac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My concern with any pressurized gas system is the travel limitations with bridges and tunnels. It would become a problem with many of the NJ/NY crossings that someday could get you in a lot of trouble. NY/NJ does not play when it comes to protecting crossings since 9/11.
I used to carry a 15 lbs CO2 tank in my Jeep wrangler, used to refill tires after offroading or running air tools. I used to have to be careful (I lived in NJ and worked in NY) which crossing I used. The tank was inside clamped to the inside of the rollbar (safe from rollovers). I didn't take any chances. A vehicle where the fuel system is compressed gas would probably be identified by AI and set off alarms...
Although it says LP it applies to all compressed gas tanks:
Source: https://triptik.aaa.com/help/pdf/RV-Bridge-Ferry-Tunnel-Guide-3-26-20.pdf
The "Red Book" here
There are times when some of the crossings are closed for construction.
This 2021 article says about $30k:
Welcome to the world of 'electro modding', where classic cars are reincarnated as electric vehicles
Converting classic cars to electric vehicles is booming in popularity. Here's what it costs, how long it takes, and what cars are the most suitable.
This 2022 article says $20k, tho depends on the range you are after.
From bowser to battery: EV conversions rev up as petrol soars towards $2.20
Car and petrol prices have reached record highs, so could running on empty be the solution to Australia's bowser battles?
Can't find it now, but I know I saw another article saying about $40k. All figures being AUD.
Yes exactly, AUD isn’t worth a lot. A good battery pack without any kind of battery management system let alone fabrication would cost that much. Those prices are way off.This 2021 article says about $30k:
Welcome to the world of 'electro modding', where classic cars are reincarnated as electric vehicles
Converting classic cars to electric vehicles is booming in popularity. Here's what it costs, how long it takes, and what cars are the most suitable.www.abc.net.au
This 2022 article says $20k, tho depends on the range you are after.
From bowser to battery: EV conversions rev up as petrol soars towards $2.20
Car and petrol prices have reached record highs, so could running on empty be the solution to Australia's bowser battles?www.abc.net.au
Can't find it now, but I know I saw another article saying about $40k. All figures being AUD.
Been wondering this too, as well as the useful life of the tank. Somewhat like EV batteries, it may not be cost-effective to replace an aging or damaged tank.
While EV batteries do pose a unique fire threat and are hard to extinguish, typically occupants can exit the vehicle before it is fully engulfed. And, with LFP and other chemistries and designs coming online, the battery fire risk has been going down steadily just in a few years, and it looks like the trend will continue...with the very real chance that EV fire risk will become negligible.
Hydrogen? Very, very high pressure, very flammable, and a continuous risk of catastrophic explosion. Did everybody see the Ukrainian use of a surplus tank as a weapon? Scary.
EV fire risk is already far lower than gas cars. It might not seem that way since every! single! EV fire is reported on, but the stats show otherwise. Hybrids, however, have a much higher risk than both. Hydrogen makes no sense, and seems to be geared toward those who really want to keep going to some sort of gas station at all costs (not that you can find any).
Absolutely. The problem arises if they happen to be in a fire (not necessarily the cause) as they take so much more water to distinguish. A large car showroom in South Wales near me burnt down a few nights ago and a friend of mine who is a fire fighter told me over 200 cars were lost, but around 60 of them were electric and electric hybrids. He said they didn’t cause it but were an immense challenge to put out. They had to use a local lake to source from.
It is incredible though whenever EV’s are discussed on public forums there is an overwhelming contingent that say they’ll never have one because they catch fire. I think latest stats suggest they are 20 times less likely to ignite than the average ICE vehicle. So many people suggest hydrogen is the technology they’d go for instead yet range is lower and it sort of contradicts the fire risk worries they have for EV’s lol.
So true. Not only are EV’s safer, they often get blamed for fires nothing to do with them. A couple of years back there was a fire at Luton Airport car park. Nothing to do with EV’s, yet some reports blamed an EV for starting it.
So much misinformation out there.
That fire still gets shared with people using it as an example of EV fires, yet it was caused by an electrical fault in a diesel Land Rover lol. Even when causes are publicly reported, many will take no notice at all as long as it supports an agenda.
A sponsored agenda at that!
a setback for the US/Canada EV market:
finance.yahoo.com
Ford only offers pickups/SUVs with the exception of the "classic" Mustang, no passenger cars.
makes me wonder what GM will do especially with the new Bolt.
Ford Scraps Electric SUV in $1.9 Billion Hit to EV Ambitions
(Bloomberg) -- Ford Motor Co. is recalibrating its electrification strategy yet again, canceling plans for a fully electric sport utility vehicle in a shift that may cost the carmaker around $1.9 billion.Most Read from BloombergThe Serious Work That Free Play Can DoIn addition to scrapping an...
makes me wonder what GM will do especially with the new Bolt.
Perhaps you are correct, but you have to consider the total number of ICE automobiles versus the total number of EV's. Besides, what makes a present EV battery dangerous is not the possibility that it can catch afire, but the extremely high temperatures encountered in metallic fires, and what it does to nearby environment, animal life, en so on. An EV battery fire in a crowded parking area under a multi apartment building can create a lot more problems that an ICE vehicle "on fire" on the same parking space. But it is very possible that future batteries will be safer than existing ones, because "product safety" is something that cannot be ignored. A safer product reduces possible litigations.
If hydrogen makes no sense, how about other energies used for propulsion, including jet fuel? How about the dangers associated with nuclear energy, the development of X-ray in the medical field, and so on? What makes no sense is to not continue the quest for and development of all "possible" sources of energy.
Last edited:
Incorrect. The fingers are for the amount of car fires by type per 10,000 cars so the facts are clear.
It’s just these facts don’t suit the anti EV brigade.
That makes absolutely no difference at all to the way the data is gathered. It’s done proportionately to give a genuine segment for analysis. For every million EV’s sold, less spontaneously catch fire per million ICE vehicles sold. On current stats an EV is suggested as being 20 times less likely to catch fire. An EV fire will get significantly more publicity though and this is funded by petrochemical companies that use social media to promote that sort of agenda. People not keen on change will gladly make such articles go viral free of charge too.
I could be incorrect, of course
But putting aside the notion of both an anti-EV or a pro-EV brigade, the most important to all life and the environment is to continue our efforts to improve or make all products that we make, safer. Blaming one side or another does not make any "brigade" right.
I could be incorrect, of course
But putting aside the notion of both an anti-EV or a pro-EV brigade, the most important to all life and the environment is to continue our efforts to improve or make all products that we make, safer. Blaming one side or another does not make any "brigade" right.
Regardless of where you stand, if you care about the environment, the odd EV fire and all the mineral mining on the planet is more environmentally friendly than 16 billion ICE vehicles running across all continents.
It's the E-bikes getting all the publicity here from catching on fire while charging, probably cheap bikes/batteries.
My son lives in Copenhagen and just sent me a photo of a apartment block near him on fire from a e-bike.
Don't see/hear any e-cars catching fire in garages etc Although not as many here yet, only ones you see are Teslas out of Sydney/Brisbane, I live half way. Would be hard to have one here as the closest service centre would be 6 hours drive.
Plenty of hybrid cars which I tried just recently and didn't like them.
I personally would never go EV until charging stations are or close to as common as petrol stations.
Mrs has a 3 year old suzuki swift has done 15,000km's just around town, no point swapping it to a EV.
Can't tell me anyone that's been around awhile really likes driving a silent car lol
Perhaps, but in reality we only hear or see what we believe as being true or not. It is a smoke and mirrors show; we are the spectators. Regardless of which human-made item is, a vehicle, house, and so on, it affects all life and the environment. Who is to say that one is better or worse than the rest? Fuels of numerous kinds and electricity are used for the gathering the materials, the construction, and the delivering of all products (even our homes and belongings inside). All we can do is to improve what we make; make them safer and more efficient. At the present time there aren't any ethical means to reduce the human populations around the wold. The more of us, the more things, and foods we need and want
Last edited:
EV Battery Factory in Kansas to be Powered by Coal, At Least Temporarily
A new electric vehicle battery factory in Kansas needs so much energy that the state is delaying the retirement of…
www.instituteforenergyresearch.org
What’s the point of this:EV Battery Factory in Kansas to be Powered by Coal, At Least Temporarily
A new electric vehicle battery factory in Kansas needs so much energy that the state is delaying the retirement of…
. A bad choice by the manufacturer to choose Kansas?
. That you need energy/electricity in manufacturing?
. That Kansas is behind adopting renewable energy?
Sorry man, you are not on solid ground.
Fuel fires are many times more frequent than battery fires (per miles driven), so by your own argument of product safety, we should be moving away from flammable fuels.
There are already non-flammable batteries in testing, that will ramp to production in less than a decade. Good luck finding non-flammable fuel. The clock is ticking on burning stuff for most propulsion and nearly all forms of energy. What makes sense is to accelerate energy and transportation away from combustion.
If we want to talk about rare but possible outliers, google houses exploding due to gas leaks. And gas station fires. Both are rare, but horrifying (not unlike battiery fires), but those...we just shrug and accept...Why? I suppose because they make sense. Flammable stuff burns. Somehow the anti-EV crowd ignores these while preaching the dangers of rare battery fires. Speaks more to an agenda than a statistical threat.
It was the same with cobalt. Oh...the horrors of cobalt mining! EVs are the worst! Yeah...but the same folks complaining don't say a peep about the phone in their pocket, the laptop on the desk, the cordless tools in their garage, or...the cobalt required to refine gasoline. Cobalt became a convenient attack vector to EVs. That says more about the agenda of the attacker than any concern about cobalt.
Battery fires are the current attack vector. What will be next? As long as the agenda is to stymie EV adoption, there will always be another attack vector.
Australia can keep producing ICE cars if it wants, the UAE will be grateful I’m sure.
EV’s aren’t silent btw.
Perhaps, but in reality we only hear or see what we believe as being true or not. It is a smoke and mirrors show; we are the spectators. Regardless of which human-made item is, a vehicle, house, and so on, it affects all life and the environment. Who is to say that one is better or worse than the rest? Fuels of numerous kinds and electricity are used for the gathering the materials, the construction, and the delivering of all products (even our homes and belongings inside). All we can do is to improve what we make; make them safer and more efficient. At the present time there aren't any ethical means to reduce the human populations around the wold. The more of us, the more things, and foods we need and want
The reality is my Audi A4 burns fuel and exhaust gases come out of the back, it’s visible and you can smell it. My wife’s Q4 doesn’t exhaust any fumes, therefore is not contributing to pollution, especially in built up areas on her commute. A few hundred like my car on the road is more of an environmental risk than a few hundred EV’s producing no pollution on their commute. You mentioned the environment and you don’t need an article or a report to point out the obvious.
This is true that there are a TON more issues with these e-bikes. It's because they do not have the battery thermal management systems that modern EVs have. I trust having an EV in my garage charging on a Level 2 charger daily but wouldn't really trust having an e-bike inside. A lot of work went into the design of EV battery maintenance, it doesn't seem the same was or could economically be done with e-bikes (they don't really have the space for coolant lines, radiators and cooling fans).
I am in my late 40's, and by definition a car guy. I LOVE the quietness of an EV. So much so that I got rid of our 3 ICE vehicles to get 2 EVs. I still have my ICE motorcycle, but unfortunately with a young kid and 2 recent car accidents I have put riding on the back burner. I think I've been around awhile.