• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Electric cars...

Would you buy an electric car?

  • No thank you

  • Sign me up!

  • If I must

  • I don't drive, thus I really don't care anyway

  • I am interested, but until there is more reliable technology for long highway trips


Results are only viewable after voting.

Duncan74

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
I think there is a real issue with damage to the underside of EVs. Which depending on your use case (as referenced above) could be an irrelevancy or a decision to stay with ICE.

I'm not talking about hardcore 4x4, but my drive has a really steep start to it. Fine if you approach from one side, and fine if I turn in using my shogun/pajero, but if we do that tight turn in the ICE golf it catches the sill. Which in the ICE Golf does not worry me at all. However, that is the type of impact, in a way that is not indended/designed for that can damage the battery cell that is on the floor.

Batteries have to be low for stability, and also you don't want to enclose them with too much protection or else you reduce the cooling airflow. Also for future service/replacement you need the battery to be somehow accessible.

So in an ICE shunt crash you can do a lot of expensive damage to the engine. Where a EV that's highly unlikely. But if you do happen to have an issue where there is a strike to the underside it's the reverse, that's where the $$$ bit of the EV kit is vulnerable, where an ICE platform it's unlikely you'll damage anything that is in write off territory.
 

Forest Cat

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
I think there is a real issue with damage to the underside of EVs. Which depending on your use case (as referenced above) could be an irrelevancy or a decision to stay with ICE.

That seems to be the worst place you can damage them. And maybe most expensive place.
 
Last edited:

Outdated

I'm from the other end of the spectrum.
V.I.P Member
I'm still looking forward to the emergence of ammonia technology. Several different countries are working on quite a few different ideas. The hydrogen fuel cell itself is a good idea but hydrogen is difficult and dangerous to store.

A newer idea is to have a tank containing ammonia - NH3 which gets broken down in to nitrogen and hydrogen by a catalytic converter to supply hydrogen to the engine, both for internal combustion driven and for electricity generated electric.

 

Neonatal RRT

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
I think there is a real issue with damage to the underside of EVs. Which depending on your use case (as referenced above) could be an irrelevancy or a decision to stay with ICE.

I'm not talking about hardcore 4x4, but my drive has a really steep start to it. Fine if you approach from one side, and fine if I turn in using my shogun/pajero, but if we do that tight turn in the ICE golf it catches the sill. Which in the ICE Golf does not worry me at all. However, that is the type of impact, in a way that is not indended/designed for that can damage the battery cell that is on the floor.

Batteries have to be low for stability, and also you don't want to enclose them with too much protection or else you reduce the cooling airflow. Also for future service/replacement you need the battery to be somehow accessible.

So in an ICE shunt crash you can do a lot of expensive damage to the engine. Where a EV that's highly unlikely. But if you do happen to have an issue where there is a strike to the underside it's the reverse, that's where the $$$ bit of the EV kit is vulnerable, where an ICE platform it's unlikely you'll damage anything that is in write off territory.
True. Battery protection is critical. For reference, Tesla has been using a 1/4 inch/6.35mm thick "ballistic grade" aluminum/titanium underbody protection plate since 2014. It would have to be one Hell of an impact to puncture it. Here is the link with videos of an impact with a solid steel tow hitch and a cement cinder block: Tesla's Model S now has a titanium underbody shield to reduce risk of battery fires to 'virtually zero'
A recent news story further emphasized the safety: Drive your family off of a rocky mountain side, roll the car over and over down some 250ft/76m in an attempted murder/suicide, only to have everyone walk away. Unlikely survival of family that plunged off 250-foot California cliff credited to luck, Tesla's design
 
Last edited:

MyLifeAsAnAspie

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
The ferries will have to deal with it in a few years when half the cars will be EVs. At least that's my hope. I guess the ferries providing charging on ferries may be to much to ask for in the near future :rolleyes:.
 

Forest Cat

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
The ferries will have to deal with it in a few years when half the cars will be EVs. At least that's my hope. I guess the ferries providing charging on ferries may be to much to ask for in the near future :rolleyes:.

They just don't have any equipment to fight an electric car fire on ferries. So you have people trapped on a boat with a out of control fire. I don't know about charging, if they are going to charge several cars on a ferry they need a lot of electricity.
 

Neonatal RRT

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
The way to put out an EV battery fire is to freeze it, as it is the thermal runaway that is the issue. So we are looking at something like liquid nitrogen. Easy enough to make. A bit more difficult to store for those rare occasions where this might happen, and it is extremely rare. An ICE vehicle is something on the order of 100X more likely to catch fire. Roughly 10-15% of all fire department calls are for ICE vehicles.

As far as charging on a ferry. No need. If you are traveling with a low state of charge, or an empty fuel tank, that's simple stupidity. No difference between the two in my book. The last time I stopped at a charging station was almost 7 months ago while we were on the open road on vacation. Otherwise, charging stations for local commuting is almost unneeded.
 

Forest Cat

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
As far as charging on a ferry. No need. If you are traveling with a low state of charge, or an empty fuel tank, that's simple stupidity. No difference between the two in my book. The last time I stopped at a charging station was almost 7 months ago while we were on the open road on vacation. Otherwise, charging stations for local commuting is almost unneeded.

I need something I can hitch a trailer to and tow some weight. So that makes it impossible to use EVs now. I get no range. Even with no extra weight the range is bad, they don't go far. And if I have to drive far I have to charge it, something that can be impossible because of a lack of charging stations. Doesn't matter if I have a full battery when I leave home, it will run out and then I'm screwed. I have to get a 50 mile long extention cord and then walk around looking for an outlet. :)
 
Last edited:

Neonatal RRT

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
Use the correct tool for the job.

The EV trucks are just coming out. Give it a few years to tweaking before they will be able to match all the important metrics of a legit "work truck". Ford has their Lightning, but they are having some of the issues you mention with regards to range while under load. We will have to see what Tesla, GM, and the other new startups will perform. I say give it about 4-5 years before we see something that will genuinely meet the demands of a full-sized work truck.
 

Outdated

I'm from the other end of the spectrum.
V.I.P Member
This is a bit off topic but sort of related, new battery technologies. Sodium Ion battery technology:

The downside of these batteries first: They take a lot longer to charge up than Lithium Ion. They are no good for handheld tools or cars but they are perfect for energy infrastructure.

On the plus side:

Much cheaper. Sodium (salt) is a lot more readily available than Lithium or Vanadium and certainly a lot cheaper. They still require the same amount of Nickel as Lithium Ion batteries though.

Much safer. They don’t get hot, even under full discharge/short. No risk of fire.

Much more environmentally friendly. An ideal source of Sodium for industrial use is the outflow of a water desalination plant, so we reduce the amount of outflow from that plant and at the same time reduce the need for the mining of Lithium.

I discussed this topic with my local MP 6 months ago and to her credit she did research the topic and discussed it with other members.

As part of that conversation I wrote:

“I was always very concerned about Lithium-Ion batteries being installed in people’s homes for household power storage because of the fire danger inherent in that technology. People will always be people and eventually some of those batteries are going to suffer accidental physical damage, the results can be catastrophic. That can’t happen with Sodium-Ion.”

In one of her replies she wrote:

“Specifically regarding sodium-ion batteries, the I understand the Department is monitoring research and trails currently being undertaken by the University of Wollongong, funded by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency: see Sewage pumping station cleans up with sodium batteries. “
 

Neonatal RRT

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
This is a bit off topic but sort of related, new battery technologies. Sodium Ion battery technology:

The downside of these batteries first: They take a lot longer to charge up than Lithium Ion. They are no good for handheld tools or cars but they are perfect for energy infrastructure.

On the plus side:

Much cheaper. Sodium (salt) is a lot more readily available than Lithium or Vanadium and certainly a lot cheaper. They still require the same amount of Nickel as Lithium Ion batteries though.

Much safer. They don’t get hot, even under full discharge/short. No risk of fire.

Much more environmentally friendly. An ideal source of Sodium for industrial use is the outflow of a water desalination plant, so we reduce the amount of outflow from that plant and at the same time reduce the need for the mining of Lithium.

I discussed this topic with my local MP 6 months ago and to her credit she did research the topic and discussed it with other members.

As part of that conversation I wrote:

“I was always very concerned about Lithium-Ion batteries being installed in people’s homes for household power storage because of the fire danger inherent in that technology. People will always be people and eventually some of those batteries are going to suffer accidental physical damage, the results can be catastrophic. That can’t happen with Sodium-Ion.”

In one of her replies she wrote:

“Specifically regarding sodium-ion batteries, the I understand the Department is monitoring research and trails currently being undertaken by the University of Wollongong, funded by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency: see Sewage pumping station cleans up with sodium batteries. “
Learn about the applications, pros and cons of "salt water" battery vs. "lithium ion" battery technology
 

Neonatal RRT

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
I don't see how it could possibly save the planet, considering the materials they need to build them and the batteries. They have to mine the entire earth to get what they need to build the amount of electric cars they say we should use. They have to remove all the nature and turn earth inside out.
I think we have to turn our attention to more of a discussion of what is considered "sustainable" over the long term, like 100, 500, 1000 years from now. We can not have this discussion with our minds in the present.

There are ways, right now, to recycle battery materials to their fundamental elements and then package them for reuse in other things. Redwood Materials | Circular Supply Chain for Lithium-ion Batteries As long as we are using petroleum products as a fuel source, burning it, then converting the remaining waste products back to another usable fuel source is, to my knowledge, not possible. Now, petroleum products certainly can be used for making materials, and some of those materials can be recycled. The concern that many see right now is that we generally do not "carbon capture" when we burn these fuels for transportation and heating our homes, etc. If we want our petroleum reserves to last longer, we have to severely limit the burning of it until we can find some novel way of recycling it. Until that time, diversifying our energy sources is needed.

It is true that extracting oil, natural gas, minerals, limestone, granite, quartz, etc. is in no way "environmentally friendly". No one is "saving the planet" from an impending environmental disaster, per se. All we can do right now is reduce the chances of it until we can find another way to do things. This is not the argument we should be having. Both are bad, but right now, minerals for energy storage can be recycled. If we don't slow down our burning, we WILL run out, it is not renewable right now. We have to conserve until we can extract energy and materials from some other source.

So, we can criticize the likes of Elon Musk, SpaceX, NASA, and every other space agency around the world, but some day, space mining will actually be a real thing and then we will have extraterrestrial sources of energy, and reduce our mining and drilling on Earth. So, I am all for supporting our space programs right now, because if there is any long term hope for the Earth, it's out in space. We can not continue extracting materials from our own planet over the long term.
 

Shevek

Well-Known Member
If we want our petroleum reserves to last longer, we have to severely limit the burning of it until we can find some novel way of recycling it. Until that time, diversifying our energy sources is needed.

See carbonengineering.com We have that technology already. From pure wind and air, we can make synthetic gasoline an an affordable price. We can tweak the process to divert some carbon for permanent removal from the atmosphere, making ordinary cars carbon-negative just by changing fuels. The reason we don't hear about a crash program to implement this is because a few very rich people would lose some zeroes on their bank accounts.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom