Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

After bus fire, CT pulls electric fleet from service

ctinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 148 posts

Re: After bus fire, CT pulls electric fleet from service

#21

Post by Swizec »

ShakataGaNai wrote: post #12
GiorgioG wrote: post #7

As much progress has been made in EVs, I have no interest in sitting atop of a napalm bomb while zipping around town. There's a few problems that keep me from being remotely interested in EVs, this is one of them. The others are range anxiety, energy storage portability and battery replacement costs. If I run out of gas on the side of the highway, I call AAA and they can deliver me a couple of gallons of gas or I can…

The napalm bomb you're speaking of is made of gasoline. Which is in most cars and vehicles on the road. So you're less afraid of something designed to catch fire and explode (gas) than something that is designed to operate safely at it's core (batteries)? That just doesn't make sense. Other than being afraid of new technology. And that's totally ok. Its fine to say you don't like change or new technologies. There is…

Gasoline doesn’t burn. Gas+air mixture burns and the concentration of gas has to be surprisingly low for the reaction to work - 1 part gas for 14.7 parts air.

Batteries provide their own air and will burn submerged underwater, if they want to. The firefighting protocol is “Contain fire and wait, sometimes for days”. That’s why the containment cell is designed to be nigh impervious and fire is unlikely. But once a fire starts, good luck.

Re: After bus fire, CT pulls electric fleet from service

#22

Post by kayodelycaon »

londons_explore wrote: post #8
nathanaldensr wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire point is that you can't "deal" with it. Since car batteries contain the fuel and the oxidizer, there isn't a way to separate them short of blowing the whole thing up. Fires can stop and start spontaneously, and often do (see pictures and videos of Teslas on fire in junkyards).

Electric cars could totally be designed to be re-ignite-proof. For example, you'd have the battery pack detect a breach - for example through a lack of pressurised coolant. That would then trigger each battery cell to have a PTC resistor discharge it - that could be entirely mechanical. The PTC resistors would discharge the battery in a few hours, maintaining the battery temperature at say 120C. As water is doused on…

How well do these safety feature survive 2,000+ºF fire burning next to them?

Re: After bus fire, CT pulls electric fleet from service

#23

Post by gunapologist99 »

ShakataGaNai wrote: post #12
GiorgioG wrote: post #7

As much progress has been made in EVs, I have no interest in sitting atop of a napalm bomb while zipping around town. There's a few problems that keep me from being remotely interested in EVs, this is one of them. The others are range anxiety, energy storage portability and battery replacement costs. If I run out of gas on the side of the highway, I call AAA and they can deliver me a couple of gallons of gas or I can…

The napalm bomb you're speaking of is made of gasoline. Which is in most cars and vehicles on the road. So you're less afraid of something designed to catch fire and explode (gas) than something that is designed to operate safely at it's core (batteries)? That just doesn't make sense. Other than being afraid of new technology. And that's totally ok. Its fine to say you don't like change or new technologies. There is…

When was the last time you heard of a gasoline fire in a modern vehicle? Why is it that EV fires are so common?

> Other than being afraid of new technology.

... but then you resorted to ad hominem. Why would someone have to be "afraid" of new technology in order to have serious and legitimate concerns about it?

To help you out a bit, we also saw very bad lithium battery issues in laptops about ten years ago (just search youtube), to the point where airlines were seriously considering banning laptops and phones from being brought on board (and did ban one version of the Galaxy Note, IIRC). That was resolved, so it stands to reason that as EV improves, the risk of catastrophic fires will improve as well.

(Of course, those batteries were not being violently and physically damaged, so it's unknown whether software will be able to assist with accident-situations with an EV.)

Re: After bus fire, CT pulls electric fleet from service

#24

Post by maeln »

GiorgioG wrote: post #7

As much progress has been made in EVs, I have no interest in sitting atop of a napalm bomb while zipping around town. There's a few problems that keep me from being remotely interested in EVs, this is one of them. The others are range anxiety, energy storage portability and battery replacement costs. If I run out of gas on the side of the highway, I call AAA and they can deliver me a couple of gallons of gas or I can…

> As much progress has been made in EVs, I have no interest in sitting atop of a napalm bomb while zipping around town.

That is literally what you are doing with gasoline car. And fuel being much more energy dense than a battery, it is actually more dangerous. Car burning was a thing way before EVs.

Re: After bus fire, CT pulls electric fleet from service

#25

Post by maeln »

gunapologist99 wrote: post #23
ShakataGaNai wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The napalm bomb you're speaking of is made of gasoline. Which is in most cars and vehicles on the road. So you're less afraid of something designed to catch fire and explode (gas) than something that is designed to operate safely at it's core (batteries)? That just doesn't make sense. Other than being afraid of new technology. And that's totally ok. Its fine to say you don't like change or new technologies. There is…

When was the last time you heard of a gasoline fire in a modern vehicle? Why is it that EV fires are so common? > Other than being afraid of new technology. ... but then you resorted to ad hominem. Why would someone have to be "afraid" of new technology in order to have serious and legitimate concerns about it? To help you out a bit, we also saw very bad lithium battery issues in laptops about ten years ago (just sea…

> When was the last time you heard of a gasoline fire in a modern vehicle? Why is it that EV fires are so common?

Recently actually. An accident happened close to my place and one of the car caught fire. The driver died.

> Why is it that EV fires are so common?

How are they more common ? Do you have any statistics about it ?

Re: After bus fire, CT pulls electric fleet from service

#27

Post by GiorgioG »

donarb wrote: post #16
GiorgioG wrote: post #7

As much progress has been made in EVs, I have no interest in sitting atop of a napalm bomb while zipping around town. There's a few problems that keep me from being remotely interested in EVs, this is one of them. The others are range anxiety, energy storage portability and battery replacement costs. If I run out of gas on the side of the highway, I call AAA and they can deliver me a couple of gallons of gas or I can…

AAA has offered mobile charging for electric vehicles for over 10 years. https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15346575/placebo-on-wheel...

And they retired the program sometime in 2019.

Re: After bus fire, CT pulls electric fleet from service

#29

Post by [deleted] »

ShakataGaNai wrote: post #12
GiorgioG wrote: post #7

As much progress has been made in EVs, I have no interest in sitting atop of a napalm bomb while zipping around town. There's a few problems that keep me from being remotely interested in EVs, this is one of them. The others are range anxiety, energy storage portability and battery replacement costs. If I run out of gas on the side of the highway, I call AAA and they can deliver me a couple of gallons of gas or I can…

The napalm bomb you're speaking of is made of gasoline. Which is in most cars and vehicles on the road. So you're less afraid of something designed to catch fire and explode (gas) than something that is designed to operate safely at it's core (batteries)? That just doesn't make sense. Other than being afraid of new technology. And that's totally ok. Its fine to say you don't like change or new technologies. There is…

[deleted]

Re: After bus fire, CT pulls electric fleet from service

#30

Post by dymk »

kayodelycaon wrote: post #22
londons_explore wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electric cars could totally be designed to be re-ignite-proof. For example, you'd have the battery pack detect a breach - for example through a lack of pressurised coolant. That would then trigger each battery cell to have a PTC resistor discharge it - that could be entirely mechanical. The PTC resistors would discharge the battery in a few hours, maintaining the battery temperature at say 120C. As water is doused on…

How well do these safety feature survive 2,000+ºF fire burning next to them?

there’s a period of time between normal operation and 2000 degree fire where this could be detected
Post reply on HN