Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 23 Jul 2019, 12:43:32

tire wrote:All examples above provided by kublikhan are related to electronics. Cruise control this, ignition switch that. Electronics is not uniquely ICE. Tesla also is choke full of electronics. So we have to conclude:

ICE cold, off: fire hazard created by faulty electronics and 12V lead-acid starter battery
EV cold, off: fire hazard created by faulty electronics AND faulty multi 100V 100kWh (or whatever) lithium-ion battery.

Yes, it in fact seems that besides the electronics also found on ICE, EV provides an additional fire hazard, namely a large high voltage/high capacity lithium ion battery.
That is not true tire. Not all of these ICE fires I linked to are from electronics. You should go read the articles I linked to. Some of them are from the flammable fluids that ICE vehicles carry. Ex:

2008 - General Motors Corp. is recalling more than 207,000 Buick Regal and Pontiac Grand Prix sedans and urgently warning owners not to park them in garages or other structures because they can catch fire. The fire-prone vehicles are the 1997-2003 Buick Regal GS and Grand Prix GDP models with 3.8-liter supercharged V-6 engines. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported on its Web site that, Fires may be caused by drops of engine oil being deposited on the exhaust manifold through hard braking.

A fire can start if the oil gets hot enough, NHTSA warned. The safety agency said that if the exhaust manifold is hot enough and the oil gets below a heat shield, "it may ignite into a small flame and in some cases fire may spread to the plastic spark plug wire channel." Both NHTSA and GM strongly warned owners of the Pontiac and Buick vehicles not to park them in garages or other structures until the fire hazard is eliminated.
General Motors Recalling Buick Regal and Pontiac Grand Prix Models Due to Fire Risk

2015 - General Motors has issued a recall for 1.41 million vehicles, some dating to 1997, to fix a defect that has caused more than 1,300 engine fires. The recall will be the third attempt to correct a problem in which motor oil leaks onto hot exhaust manifolds. A 2009 recall letter to car owners advised them not to "park your vehicle in a garage, car port of other structure."
Another recall for GM cars with fire risks

Here's more:

Kia and Hyundai, two of the fastest growing auto manufacturers in North America, are under scrutiny as a result of defects with various popular Kia and Hyundai model vehicles that may result in non-collision fires. To date, thousands of Kia and Hyundai consumers have reported that their vehicles have spontaneously caught on fire without being involved in a crash. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is investigating approximately three million vehicles after receiving thousands of consumer complaints about these spontaneous fires.

It is alleged that the cause of these non-collision fires stems from a design flaw that, “restricts or blocks oil flow to the engine’s moving parts, such as connecting rod bearings, prematurely wearing out those parts to the point that the engine parts seize, which stops engine operation while running. Engine seizure often causes internal parts, such as the connecting rods, to break and knock a hole in the engine, permitting fluids to leak and ignite a fire.”
Auto News: Kia and Hyundai Spontaneous Engine Fires

Turns out the flammable fluids in ICE vehicles increases the risk of fire. In addition to these cases we can also look at the overall fire risks of the two:
About 174,000 vehicle fires were reported in the United States in 2015, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the National Fire Protection Association. Virtually all of those fires involved gasoline powered cars. That works out to about one every three minutes.

Tesla claims that gasoline powered cars are about 11 times more likely to catch fire than a Tesla. It says the best comparison is fires per 1 billion miles driven. It says the 300,000 Teslas on the road have been driven a total of 7.5 billion miles, and about 40 fires have been reported. That works out to five fires for every billion miles traveled, compared to a rate of 55 fires per billion miles traveled in gasoline cars.
Are electric cars more likely to catch fire?

Turns out ICE cars are 11 times more likely to catch fire than EVs.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4517
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby dolanbaker » Tue 23 Jul 2019, 12:51:53

Fire and ICE surprise surprise.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.:Anonymous
Our whole economy is based on planned obsolescence.
Planned obsolescence, one of the largest contributors to the man made element of climate change, but the one least discussed: dolanbaker
User avatar
dolanbaker
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3651
Joined: Wed 14 Apr 2010, 09:38:47
Location: Éire

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby tire » Tue 23 Jul 2019, 13:09:36


Yes, but this is on a hot engine/exhaust/brake.


Again, a hot engine leaking oil into a hot exhaust.



That one, too. Engine getting hot.

The only example where a COLD ICE apparently self combusted was due to electrical shorts. Same risk as with any EV. How could it be otherwise? In the ICE there's no ignition source present other than the 12V battery combined with faulty electronics.

Turns out ICE cars are 11 times more likely to catch fire than EVs.


That might be, but that's not what we're talking about. And that's also not my concern.
We were talking about a COLD car, parked in a garage. Chances that a COLD ICE parked in a garage ignites overnight are smaller than an EV parked in the same garage. Now when we add to that the charging, which brings both fire risks from the charger and from the car itself, I think we got a higher risk of fire for EV.

I think this is the scary part of the equation. That it can happen anytime, anywhere. Whereas the combustion of ICE is mostly happening when driving, in the open, or maybe short time after parking. And when parked for long, the ICE poses practically 0 risk.

But in the end I'm certain this is something that can be brought under control. Just the same way as I don't hear much news about cell phones burning up anymore (but then again, I don't pay much attention).

EDIT:
As far as I know the lithium is inherently dangerous and very flammable. So whereas I can drain the ICE tank for longterm storage and to further reduce self-ignition risk, I can't do that with an EV. Even a discharged battery still is a significant fuel and ignition source.
tire
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue 16 Jul 2019, 09:18:19

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Tue 23 Jul 2019, 15:19:21

StarvingLion wrote:Show me the Electric Cessna 172 as proof of the validity of electric personal transport.

You cannot, and you never will. The very concept of Battery cannot possibly ever work in replacing the C172 in-line 4 cylinder ICE.

The only thing you're good at is being a Buy Japan Fanboy and tossing your used Depends Undergarments in the Dumpster. By 2025, you won't need taking off your depends because you will be going into the Dumpster along with it.

The only thing you're good at is raving like a lunatic and making terrible predictions of doom, which turn out to be untrue consistently, so congrats. :roll:

I'm sure your nonsense would be popular among 8 year olds, so there's that.

Try googling "electric powered aviation". Even you might learn something. :idea:

For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_aircraft

https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/08/the-e ... aking-off/

There are challenges, especially with batteries. And yet, speaking of clowns, the complete deniers of the possibility of practical BEV's for ground transport have been emptily yammering here for a long time, and yet here we are with the,switch from ICE to HEV, PHEV, and then BEV upon us. Not a question of "if" for most of the fleet, but when.

Cost is the main issue, and of course, battery improvements are inevitable.

But of course, if you, with all your insane-asylum quality ranting say something is "impossible", then it MUST be so, given all your hard-earned credibility re your pronouncements around here. :lol:
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 7103
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 23 Jul 2019, 15:20:22

You are bending your logic into pretzels trying to make ICEs appear less fire prone than EVs. "Oh, ICE's have a higher chance of catching fire when hot? Well, let's dismiss all of those 'hot' fires then". Huh? "Oh, electrical shorts are a common cause of fire in ICE vehicles too, not just EVs? Well, let's dismiss those fires too." What?

Yet when I show that overall ICEs are 11 times more fire prone than EVs, you shrug it off? Sounds like someone with an agenda to me.

tire wrote:Whereas the combustion of ICE is mostly happening when driving, in the open, or maybe short time after parking. And when parked for long, the ICE poses practically 0 risk.
Incorrect. Plenty of ICE cars caught fire when parked for hours or even days.

The investigation — launched in collaboration with ABC-owned stations in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco and Raleigh, N.C. — found more than 40 cases in the last five years in which BMW owners said that parked cars that were not then subject to recalls for fire-related issues spontaneously burst into flames. Some of them, they said, had been turned off for hours or even days.
BMW recalls 1 million vehicles for fire risk

In a September 2016 incident, a corrections guard reported that her 2013 Kia Optima caught fire while sitting in the parking lot 4 hours after she reported to work.
NHTSA Opens New Probes Into Hyundai and Kia Vehicle Fires

A Florida woman is warning others after she says her 2008 Kia Sorento caught fire after being parked on her driveway for more than an hour.
Florida woman says parked Kia Sorento spontaneously burst into flames
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4517
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby tire » Tue 23 Jul 2019, 16:01:40

kublikhan wrote: trying to make ICEs appear less fire prone than EVs.


Ok, let’s try to find common ground again. I have feeling we talk past each other.

I accept that in total there are more ICE fires than EV fires. No problem with that.
In an ICE you have gas, oil, heat. A dangerous combination.

I don’t think those ICE car fires (where leaking oil/gas catches on fire) are of any concern, because they happen to happen while the car is in the open, driven, with people around that can call emergency response right away, avoiding a larger disaster.

I’m more concerned about those electrical fires that can happen anytime, while the car is unattended.
Those are the cases you have linked to above. All those examples of self ignition happen to have something to do with the electronics. Right? Issues with electrical valve, issues with dashboard, issue with speaker, electrical wires etc etc.

All those risk do exists with EV, too. If anything, they even contain more electronics.
So can we conclude, both ICE and EV have an inherit risk of electrical fire in the control system?
The EV is not LESS at risk of an electrical fire. Would you agree?

Now on top of that, the EV packs a dangerous Li ion battery, possibly also containing a large charge. Wouldn’t you agree that this increases the risk of electrical fire significantly?
Also now add the risk for charging the battery in your garage. Charging a battery is never risk free. Especially not a li ion battery. I hope you also agree with me on this.

So while the ICE overall has a HIGHER risk of catching fire, it does so most likely in the open, with people around who can react. But I think the risk of stealth ignition in the middle of a parking garage in the middle of the night is larger with an EV. And this is my concern when having a EV charging in the garage attached to the house I’m sleeping in.

I hope this explanation made it clearer what my concerns are. I’m not trying to argue for the sake of arguing. But sometimes it’s difficult to bring a point across on a forum, it’s much easier in a pub over a beer. :)
tire
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue 16 Jul 2019, 09:18:19

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 23 Jul 2019, 16:11:15

News about Tesla battery fires is dampening sales of all EVS

analysts-worry-recent-tesla-fires-risk-dampening-sales-for-all-evs

Car buyers are just displaying common sense. It there's a chance ---even a very small chance--- that your beautiful shiny new EV may self-combust while parked in the garage one night and destroy itself and start your house on fire as well, then why take that chance?

Why not wait a bit until the EV industry fixes the battery problem? Why not err on the side of being safe?

CHEERS!
hall of shame
People who buy new cars and then cry crocodile tears over climate change. The manufacture of a typical new car emits ca. 16 tons of CO2 and a new EV is actually much worse since the battery also has to be manufactured, resulting in a total carbon footprint of ca. 30 tons of CO2
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 22657
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 23 Jul 2019, 16:52:45

Tire, there are three problems with your argument:
1. ICE vehicles are parked hot. Ex: You drive home from work, park the car in the garage, and go into your home. Then the flammable liquids hit the hot parts of the car, ignite, and burn your house down. Like the GM fires linked to earlier.
2. The stored energy in gasoline(and it's potential for damage) is much higher than the stored energy in a lithium battery. So if something goes wrong, that's alot more fuel for the fire in the ICE.
3. Fatalities from fires are higher for ICE vehicles than EVs:

“ICE cars are fundamentally more exposed to fatal fire risks than their electric counterpart.”
“Even in case of collision, ICE vehicles are more likely to catch fire than hybrid vehicles.”
“ICE cars are fundamentally more exposed to fatal fire risks than their electric counterparts, as the deadliest fires are mostly due to flammable liquids located in the engine area.”
ICE Car Death Watch Trolls the Trolls

You might have this image in your mind of ICE vehicles only catching fire in the open when people are awake and thus much less likely for people to die in those fires. Meanwhile you are sleeping soundly in your bed and *poof* your EV shorts out and takes out your garage, house, and family. However the reality is different.

Plantagenet wrote:Why not wait a bit until the EV industry fixes the battery problem? Why not err on the side of being safe?
As of now, EVs are 11 times safer than ICE vehicles from fire. Just can't get away from the flammability of gasoline and other liquids.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4517
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 23 Jul 2019, 17:10:35

kublikhan wrote:As of now, EVs are 11 times safer than ICE vehicles from fire. Just can't get away from the flammability of gasoline and other liquids.


I think your "11 times" number comes from the greater frequency of fires in IcE vehicles then in EVs. But that is not a measure of safety....just the relative frequency of fires. Please don't misrepresent the facts like that.

The problem with your number is that many ICE fires are small and ultimately inconsequential. In contrast, once a Li=ion battery self-combusts or is ignited during a collision, the burn tends to be hot, complete, and catastrophic. Generally the car is totally destroyed, and any other cars (or garage walls) nearby also are burnt and destroyed. Li-ion batteries have even been known to self-combust a second time after the burned out wreck has been hauled off the junkyard.

Its no wonder that people have concerns about EV battery fires. A car with a large Li-ion battery that spontaneously catches on fire for no apparent reason, as some EVs do, is a pretty scary kind of car. There is clearly an engineering problem in EVs that use batteries that spontaneously catch on fire. IMHO the EV companies should be required to correct that problem.

CHEERS!
hall of shame
People who buy new cars and then cry crocodile tears over climate change. The manufacture of a typical new car emits ca. 16 tons of CO2 and a new EV is actually much worse since the battery also has to be manufactured, resulting in a total carbon footprint of ca. 30 tons of CO2
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 22657
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 23 Jul 2019, 17:36:53

In terms of fatality, ICE vehicle fires are more fatal than EV fires.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4517
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby GHung » Tue 23 Jul 2019, 18:58:50

Plantagenet wrote: ......

The problem with your number is that many ICE fires are small and ultimately inconsequential. In contrast, once a Li=ion battery self-combusts or is ignited during a collision, the burn tends to be hot, complete, and catastrophic. Generally the car is totally destroyed, and any other cars (or garage walls) nearby also are burnt and destroyed. .......

CHEERS!


Sort of like this, posted upthread:

Image

I suppose that if only 1 in 11 ICE fires results in this kind of mess, you would have to admit EVs are at a break-even point, eh? Then, again, you haven't supported your claim.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2937
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby tire » Tue 23 Jul 2019, 19:52:13

GHung wrote:
Sort of like this, posted upthread:

Image


That was not an ICE fire. It was an electrical issue leading to a fire. Same could have happened to any Tesla.
Has nothing to do with ICE vs EV.
tire
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue 16 Jul 2019, 09:18:19

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby tire » Tue 23 Jul 2019, 20:10:50

kublikhan wrote:Tire, there are three problems with your argument:
1. ICE vehicles are parked hot. Ex: You drive home from work, park the car in the garage, and go into your home. Then the flammable liquids hit the hot parts of the car, ignite, and burn your house down. Like the GM fires linked to earlier.

Yes, I understand, but it's hot only for 1 hour or so. The EV stays "hot" all the time.

2. The stored energy in gasoline(and it's potential for damage) is much higher than the stored energy in a lithium battery. So if something goes wrong, that's alot more fuel for the fire in the ICE.


Are you sure? In the li ion battery you have the electrical energy stored and on top of that you have the LI itself as a fire load. But gas stored in a container (as far as I know) does not self ignite. It needs an ignition source. The li ion battery on the other hand is much more dangerous.

3. Fatalities from fires are higher for ICE vehicles than EVs:

Yes, I read all this. It's a very PRO EV site. And most of the ICE fires stories presented are again, electrical caused fires.

You might have this image in your mind of ICE vehicles only catching fire in the open when people are awake and thus much less likely for people to die in those fires. Meanwhile you are sleeping soundly in your bed and *poof* your EV shorts out and takes out your garage, house, and family. However the reality is different.

EXACTLY. This is what I picture. I picture the ICE fire (not the electrical caused fire), but the actual ICE fire (gas/oil on hot surface) to mostly happen when the car is hot and driven with alert people around who can quickly react to the situation. But the EV is a hidden bomb that can go off any time. And charging the battery in the garage makes it even worse.
tire
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue 16 Jul 2019, 09:18:19

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby GHung » Tue 23 Jul 2019, 21:36:44

tire wrote:
GHung wrote:
Sort of like this, posted upthread:


That was not an ICE fire. It was an electrical issue leading to a fire. Same could have happened to any Tesla.
Has nothing to do with ICE vs EV.


It has everything to do with it because it doesn't matter how it started. What matters is the outcome. But if you want to be obtuse about it, go ahead.

This guy, again, pretty much nails it. Leave comments there about how wrong he is. I guarantee he spends more time on this stuff than you or I do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5HBbqRLbhY

Or maybe you've already made up your mind, reality be damned.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2937
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby kublikhan » Wed 24 Jul 2019, 06:45:32

tire wrote:Yes, I understand, but it's hot only for 1 hour or so. The EV stays "hot" all the time.
The "hot" you are using for ICE and the "hot" you are using for EV are apples and oranges: heat vs possibility of electrical short. As we have seen in the many links I provided, fire via electrical shorts in ICE vehicles can happen at any time just like in an EV. So in the way you defined "hot" the second time, ICE vehicles are "hot" all the time as well.

tire wrote:Are you sure? In the li ion battery you have the electrical energy stored and on top of that you have the LI itself as a fire load. But gas stored in a container (as far as I know) does not self ignite. It needs an ignition source. The li ion battery on the other hand is much more dangerous.
Yes I'm sure:

Stored energy in fuel is considerable: gasoline is the champion at 47.5 MJ/kg and 34.6 MJ/liter; the gasoline in a fully fueled car has the same energy content as a thousand sticks of dynamite. A lithium-ion battery pack has about 0.3 MJ/kg and about 0.4 MJ/liter (Chevy VOLT). Gasoline thus has about 100 times the energy density of a lithium-ion battery.
American Physical Society

tire wrote:Yes, I read all this. It's a very PRO EV site. And most of the ICE fires stories presented are again, electrical caused fires.
Better check again. They identified the flammable liquids as the greatest threat:

“ICE cars are fundamentally more exposed to fatal fire risks than their electric counterparts, as the deadliest fires are mostly due to flammable liquids located in the engine area.”


Leaks in the fuel system are the most common cause of vehicle fires.

Conclusion:
When comparing collisions only, EVs are safer 30-3 or 10-1, yet collisions are only responsible for a third of the fires. In general, the public and media has dismissed the other two thirds causes for fire in an automobile. They have dismissed the fact that fuel systems are still the number one cause of fires and this will never be the case for the BEV. In fact, 4 of HSW's top 5 causes for fire including (fluid spills, overheating engines, and catalytic converters) will never be the cause of a fire in a BEV.

It is very enlightening to look at the entire list provided by HSW and apply it to the US Federal Highway Administration data. Though I can not put and exact number on the remaining 60 fires per billion miles driven on US roads, it is clear that the EV, as new as they are, continue to be safer when it comes to fire incidents. Of those remaining 60 fires per billion miles, EVs will never be subject to over half of the incidents which are caused by fuel systems, fluid spills, overheating engines, catalytic converters and more.

So when the next EV fire makes the news and someone makes comment, tell them "That's great! Still 26 fires to go to be as lethal as an ICE! That is if by collision, otherwise there are many more to be equally dangerous!" That was of course spin. But here is the facts, the EV is safer and less likely to catch fire period.
Top 10 Causes of Automobile Fires - EV vs ICE

tire wrote:EXACTLY. This is what I picture. I picture the ICE fire (not the electrical caused fire), but the actual ICE fire (gas/oil on hot surface) to mostly happen when the car is hot and driven with alert people around who can quickly react to the situation. But the EV is a hidden bomb that can go off any time. And charging the battery in the garage makes it even worse.
As I discussed earlier, electrical shorts in an ICE vehicle can happen at any time. Combined with flammable liquids and far higher energy density of gasoline(1000 sticks of dynamite!), the ICE vehicle is more accurately described as a hidden bomb that can go off any time.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4517
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 24 Jul 2019, 23:56:58

I found it. I found the EV I'm gonna buy.

harley-davidson-electric-commute-bikes

Harley Davidson is working on three "concept" EV bikes. The big "Livewire" Harley EV is essentially a regular Harley with an EV engine. Its going into production this year.

But there are two more Harley EVs in development stage. One is an EV motocross bike for dirt riding, and the other is an EV scooter for urban commuting. I'm gonna buy the Harley EV commuter scooter. I've already got one scooter and one motorcycle that I use when I ride into town or go on local rides of 30-40 miles out to the hot springs or to my lake cabin and such. I'm gonna sell them off and get the Harley EV scooter when it come out in a year or three.

I really like the minimalist design, and I like the light weight, and I like the way the batteries are modular so you can take them out to recharge or replace as necessary.

Image
My first EV is gonna be a Harley!
hall of shame
People who buy new cars and then cry crocodile tears over climate change. The manufacture of a typical new car emits ca. 16 tons of CO2 and a new EV is actually much worse since the battery also has to be manufactured, resulting in a total carbon footprint of ca. 30 tons of CO2
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 22657
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Thu 25 Jul 2019, 00:54:46

Plantagenet wrote:I found it. I found the EV I'm gonna buy.

...

My first EV is gonna be a Harley!

Might be OK, but I didn't see price or specs?

Wouldn't you want to compare those to whatever is out when it's released?

Just curious. The scooters I've seen on the road in my city seem so small and under-powered that I'd be worrying about taking them on urban roads, given how people drive.

Do you know if they can be driven in bike lanes, given that Harley is looking for a no license required approach, per the article?
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 7103
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby GHung » Thu 25 Jul 2019, 08:03:05

..... and it'll toast your crotch and legs when it spontaneously bursts into flames 8O
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2937
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 25 Jul 2019, 12:07:20

Outcast_Searcher wrote:Might be OK, but I didn't see price or specs?

Wouldn't you want to compare those to whatever is out when it's released?


OF course you are right. I just got caught up in how cool it looks. I was down at the local "Farthest North Outpost" and some guy with a leather skull cap and a beard down to his navel was telling me about this new EV scooter that Harley is planning on bringing out. I would expect to pay a premium for the Harley Davidson name, and another premium for it being an EV. But then everything is more expensive in Alaska anyway. Sometimes you've just got to splurge out to get what you want.

Outcast_Searcher wrote: The scooters I've seen on the road in my city seem so small and under-powered that I'd be worrying about taking them on urban roads, given how people drive.

Do you know if they can be driven in bike lanes, given that Harley is looking for a no license required approach, per the article?


You are absolutely right that riding a scooter or a motorcycle can be pretty scary. I'm lucky in that there isn't that much traffic here in interior Alaska, so on many of my motorcycle rides there are no other cars I'm all alone blasting down the highway, more worried about running into a moose on the road then the non-existent traffic.

Image

I didn't quite get the "no license required" statement. In the US any motorcycle with an engine larger then 50 cc normally requires a motorcycle license. If the new Harley EV scooter isn't even as powerful as a 50 CC engine, then my interest in it will evaporate into cold nothingness.

Cheers!
hall of shame
People who buy new cars and then cry crocodile tears over climate change. The manufacture of a typical new car emits ca. 16 tons of CO2 and a new EV is actually much worse since the battery also has to be manufactured, resulting in a total carbon footprint of ca. 30 tons of CO2
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 22657
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Thu 25 Jul 2019, 16:34:34

Plantagenet wrote:You are absolutely right that riding a scooter or a motorcycle can be pretty scary. I'm lucky in that there isn't that much traffic here in interior Alaska, so on many of my motorcycle rides there are no other cars I'm all alone blasting down the highway, more worried about running into a moose on the road then the non-existent traffic.

Now THAT would be fantastic for a scooter with reasonable power. On the "boonie" roads around here, you still have a certain amount of high speed traffic, even if it's normally not a lot. Different environment, different mind-set.

Plantagenet wrote:I didn't quite get the "no license required" statement. In the US any motorcycle with an engine larger then 50 cc normally requires a motorcycle license. If the new Harley EV scooter isn't even as powerful as a 50 CC engine, then my interest in it will evaporate into cold nothingness.

Cheers!


Well, all I saw was this basic statement:

If all goes to plan, the bikes would not require a motorcycle license to operate.

So I just assume that they're talking about a rather low powered bike.

In the comments, I saw some references that if Harley wanted to make kiddie toys, they weren't interested -- so I presume a lot of the Harley audience wants a certain amount of power, minimum.

I'd just want to be able to fit in with traffic up to, say, 60 mph, minimum, to feel safe on various roadways.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 7103
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests