Just how safe are EVs?

[ericmark]

Overcharging starts fire.

Oh so they are not safe to be charged in an integral garage? So you clearly think EV's are not safe?

Clearly petrol and diesel also burns, but it is not the chance of a fire, but also the ability to fight a fire should it start. I have had a petrol van catch fire, and put out the fire with a fire extinguisher, but it seems with the EV, only option is to run away, they are simply not safe enough.

Even liquid fuel cars can cause problems if they catch fire, the Liverpool multi story car park showed that, but the electric car is far worse, and so the big question is if it is worth the risk?

The whole question is about risk assessment. From the problems with a TN-C-S supply being used in a non bonded location (outside) to the fires, and the voltages involved. The electric fork lift is extra low voltage, the charger is fixed not built into the fork lift, and they are charged in doors, the batteries can produce hydrogen and sulphur dioxide so good ventilation and non sparking environment, so there are risks, but over the 100 plus years we have been using lead acid batteries we have learnt how to use the with low risk, one can't say they are safe, but they are low risk.

The batteries used in EV cars are the same as used in homes for electric storage, but in the home they are in the main installed outside. However very little difference between cars being charged on a train or in an integral garage, it is unlikely the train will derail or crash. If risk of fire is why not charged enroute, then it is clear they are not safe. Can't have it both ways.

I have phones and two e-bikes where the batteries are charged in doors, but there is a difference in a 12 Ah battery which could be carried out of the house on a shovel, to the size used in a car.

 

[DiyNutJob]

So you clearly think EV's are not safe?

I clearly think lithium batteries are not safe, because it has too many modes of starting fires: impact, heat, water, maybe other conditions. I wouldn't charge them on train or at home if it is an option.

 

[ericmark]

We are all looking at the ship fire but as I have said in that thread we as yet don't know if caused by an electric car.

The speed of change is the problem, we don't want another we don't want another asbestos or thalidomide, we are still learning about the batteries, I have two e-bikes but their batteries are small enough to carry outside on a shovel.

 

[bernardgreen]

The batteries used in EV cars are the same as used in homes for electric storage, but in the home they are in the main installed outside.

and are stationary so do not have to cope with the G forces that batteries in a EV have to endure. Hence a battery used for domestic power storage may be less likely to self cremate than the same battery being bounced around in the frame of an EV

 

[bernardgreen]

are small enough to carry outside on a shovel.

but they may not remain on the shovel when the cells become rocket motors.

 

[ericmark]

but they may not remain on the shovel when the cells become rocket motors.

Interesting problem, so bike should be charged outside for safety, and clearly not in a wooden shed which could go on fire, but is a metal shed safe with a TN-C-S supply? I know charger is class II, but should one bond the shed when fitting a socket in it?

 

[StephenStephen]

It is a shame that we have a situation where it's advantageous to, for example; newspaper journalists, to write articles which encourage polarisation and zealotry about all sorts of things.
It makes it difficult to have rational fact-based thinking or discussion about things.
The context of the discussion is a stream of articles, radio programmed and TV programmes which are sensational, inaccurate, and vehemently anti-EV.
So I can find it difficult to avoid being defensive about EV's in that context.

In terms of the facts, I would suggest that we know some things:
- ICE cars are far more likely to catch fire than EV's
-Battery fires are more difficult to put out
-EV range has increased greatly over the years: 200 to 300 miles is becoming commonplace
-Anti EV stories are more likely to gain traction in the current media climate "EV's actually work ok" isn't the kind of story to sell papers
-There are environmental and exploitation problems with sourcing the materials for EV batteries
-There's a higher environmental cost in the production of an EV than in the production of an ICE vehicle
-For most vehicle users, EV's will be a better environmental choice over the lifetime of the vehicle (I can't remember the average carbon break even point for ICE and EV - something around 30 000 miles?)
-EV's are more expensive (although there have been some massive price drops recently in the price of some second hand EV's)
-End of vehicle life battery re-use or recycling is in its infancy
-Battery repair and replacement is in it's infancy, so it's expensive and difficult to source

I'm also mindful of Douglas Adams' quote about technology:

"I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:

1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.

2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.

3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt (Dirk Gently, #3)

Douglas Adams Quotes (Author of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy)

3000 quotes from Douglas Adams: 'I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.', 'I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go by.', and 'The story so far: In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of...

www.goodreads.com

 

[DiyNutJob]

- ICE cars are far more likely to catch fire than EV's

Not buying this. Minor impact can damage batteries that will lead to fire.

 

[bernardgreen]

Minor impact can damage batteries that will lead to fire

Some spontaneous fires have occurred without any damage, these were started by a failure inside one of the battery's cells

- ICE cars are far more likely to catch fire than EV's

A petrol tank can be damaged enough to leak fuel on the road, without a source of ignition there is no fire.

All vehicles can have electrical faults that might ignite a fire in the vehicle. This fire has to reach the petrol tank before a significant fire can start.
In almost all circumstances the vehicle can be halted and occupants evacuated before the fire reaches the petrol tank

An un-damaged EV battery can explode into a raging fire in less than a second giving the occupants very little time to evacuate the vehicle.

 

[StephenStephen]

Not buying this. Minor impact can damage batteries that will lead to fire.

I think it's a technical error to think that this is a matter of your opinion or my opinion - isn't it better to look at the research done by people who are trained and qualified to undertake the research?

 

[DiyNutJob]

I think it's a technical error to think that this is a matter of your opinion or my opinion - isn't it better to look at the research done by people who are trained and qualified to undertake the research?

What you say does make sense. So, I did a quick research:

 

[StephenStephen]

What you say does make sense. So, I did a quick research:

...which proves my point about the current media storm exactly, and is clickbait rather than research...
...which would work more like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

[StephenStephen]

I am neither anti nor pro, but I am concerned about the safety of lithium batteries, and until a safer technology, such as, for example graphene, comes along I think that is a valid concern. It seems that every time anyone questions the current direction of EVs the EV bigots want to have a go at anyone questioning their particular hobby horse. Is that you? It is easy to act like a tw@t and not discuss a serious issue - I see managers doing it all the time. Why not be better than that?

FYI I took the decision more than 20 years ago to stop flying for business or pleasure on environmental grounds. A decusion qhich cost me a career I had begun go regard as unsustainable. In 2014 I further took the decision to only drive to jobs if absolutely unavoidable, to stop using the car for much if my personal travel, and instead to use public transport (and BTW I am a tradesman, so it hasn't been easy). What have you done about reducing your carbon footprint, traffic congestion and pollution, then?

Sorry if I wasn't clear - I wasn't wanting to question your environmental concerns, just to point out that zealotry is zealotry, and there's a lot of fuzzy zealotry in all positions in the current questions about ICE and EV vehicles...
Hobby horses ride in all sorts of directions!

 

[DiyNutJob]

...which proves my point about the current media storm exactly, and is clickbait rather than research...
...which would work more like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Sounds like anything you like is called scientific methods, and anything you don't like is called click baiting zealotry. This is not a good way to convince people of your point of view.

Conventional wisdom states: there is no smoke without fire. EV's are smoking and there is no way to hide it. As an energy store, lithium based technology is both not mature and not safe. This is why it is banned in postal services in many countries. There is no such issues with other battery types. When the "scientific" community is willing to put their money where their mouth is, by compensating all victims of battery fires, their perspectives may have some value. As it is, the postman trumps the scientist any day of the week.

What is your reason for defending EV? Are you sitting atop a pile of lithium cells that are ready to blow any minute? Even if we all give you good wishes and agree lithium is safe, it still won't modify the probability of one of the cells starting a non-ret@rd-able catastrophic chain-reaction.

 

[chainsaw_masochist]

Sorry if I wasn't clear - I wasn't wanting to question your environmental concerns, just to point out that zealotry is zealotry, and there's a lot of fuzzy zealotry in all positions in the current questions about ICE and EV vehicles...
Hobby horses ride in all sorts of directions!

I think you make some good points re EVs and their associated fear:fact ratio. The only point that I would take issue with is:

For most vehicle users, EV's will be a better environmental choice over the lifetime of the vehicle (I can't remember the average carbon break even point for ICE and EV - something around 30 000 miles?)

This claim can only really be a pretty haphazard guess - surely it will take some years before we have the data to provide any sort of real conclusion? Consider for instance that if we were to take two identical EVs both home-charged, but one is, say, from a property where there are installed solar panels and any other supplied power is derived from renewables and compare this to a second EV, charged via a property where the leccy comes from a fossil-fuel power station. One can clearly be considered as truly 'carbon neutral' but the other obviously not. So the second might have the 'break even' point at 60k, 70k o even longer.

I know the point you are making is intentionally presented as a fairly broad brushstroke argument, but you get what I am driving at?