216
'It doesn’t catch fire': Why China’s "fireproof" sodium battery could be the breakthrough that makes EVs safer than ICE cars (www.techradar.com)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/world@lemmy.world
54 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/62209265

cross-posted from : https://lemmy.zip/post/62209262

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 58 points 4 months ago* (8 children)

They already are safer than ICE cars.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    honestly the only major safety issues with EVs is tesla specific and their ultra retarded door handle system. Yes lets take a simple mechanical system that has worked great for 200 years and make it an electric button, then hide the real mechanical release in a spot that you can't find when panicked and choking to death on smoke. Great job, so futuristic.

    Bigger issue overall is fire departments dragging their feet on not having the correct gear/training to handle self sustaining lithium fires. Gasoline is easy to suppress and dilute, lithium not so much, since it's difficult to get water directly to the cells to cool them below autoignition point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    The chevy bolt had a battery fire problem with early models that was pretty bad but they replaced all the batteries in the car and it was fine. We got ours replaced for free which essentially made it new given the batteries are the first major component that needs to be replaced.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    No but I heard about an electric car burning once, and none of my ice cars have ever combusted, so CLEARLY, electrics are deathtraps

    /s

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Fuck ICE. In every sense of the expression.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (2 children)

    Don't fuck ICE in the sexual sense of the expression. Those incels can fuck each other

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Safer than an explosion-powered car carrying a big tank of gasoline? A bold claim! /s

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Cybertrucks are (supposedly) deadlier than Ford Pintos so it really depends on the comparison

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Maybe we shouldn’t attempt to generalize about the categorizes by choosing the most grotesque extremes of both.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (2 children)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Wait, how? Aren't they essentially the same except heavier?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    one sets itself on fire over and over thousand of times a minute, using the explosive force to spin wheels.

    The other doesn't.

    They are dissimilar in this regard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Of course, but we're talking safety here. The claim is that ICE vehicles are less safe than EVs. I'm wondering how that is since all of the safety features will be essentially the same.

    If you're saying one has a higher risk of fire injury I'd love to see the stats on that as fires for either type are pretty rare.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Every study has concluded that EV's catch fire at a rate orders of magnitude lower than ICE vehicles. That's a rate, so it takes into account the disparity in numbers of vehicles between ice and ev's

    It's pretty easy to look up, even the slop machines give the right answer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Again, talking about safety, not fires. Not only does number of fires not necessarily mean more dangerous: the fires could be on average smaller and/or easier to escape from, or maybe they tend to happen while unoccupied (block heater fires for example) etc. but also EVs could be more dangerous in other ways (they are heavier so maybe harder to avoid certain types of incidents?) so it'd be a wash even though they're less likely to burn.

    Additionally, rates are a better way of looking at these things I agree, but ignoring sample size and use case can miss part off the story. That might not be free case here, it's just worth keeping in mind.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    I'm not sure I agree, but much of that is coming from their heinous "not ready for real world use" like "autopilot" and "FSD".

    I just don't want to be anywhere near one when a battery's breached. That's when it goes from relatively safe to RUN FOR YOUR LIVES.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •