cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/62209265
cross-posted from : https://lemmy.zip/post/62209262
They already are safer than ICE cars.
Safer than an explosion-powered car carrying a big tank of gasoline? A bold claim! /s
Cybertrucks are (supposedly) deadlier than Ford Pintos so it really depends on the comparison
Maybe we shouldn’t attempt to generalize about the categorizes by choosing the most grotesque extremes of both.
Why not
Because by definition the furthest outliers have the least to say about the rest of the group.
Teslas crash more than any other brand. 3/3 last years.
that’s because they’re the bmw of ev’s. A disproportionate amount of assholes drive them.
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.
Hope you can unlock the doors!!!
Wait, how? Aren’t they essentially the same except heavier?
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.
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.
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.
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.
AFAIK sodium chemistry batteries are the worst for mobile applications as they’re much less energy dense meaning you’ll have a heavier pack that needs to be charged more frequently, though it is cheaper for manufacturers to produce. I recall that these work best for grid power storage where size and weight aren’t an issue.
The packs CATL makes now are 175Whr/kg which is very close to LFP. They’re already EV-worthy.
That’s great but emerging technologies are shooting for double or triple that amount, so why switch to something thats just barely reaching the equivalent potential of what’s already old news?
Because it’s safer, cheaper and works in cold weather.
What EVs don’t work in cold weather? Cheaper for the manufacturer for sure, and potentially safer though its not as if EV fires are some major epidemic.
At a significant loss, yes. When it was really cold here that was about 30-40%
I can live with that, 100miles of range is more than I use day to day, so is 60miles. Winter road trips could be a pain, but that’s maybe once a year
Yeah I’d be happy with a safer battery with a bit less range if it also means it’s more consistent in said range between seasons. It’s good to know you’ll make it to X next city/charger/etc regardless of temperatures
I imagine vastly lower cost would be one reason. 450km range chargeable in 11 minutes would be enough for a significant proportion of people and likely desirable if the cost is low enough. I don’t think it’s likely that lithium would match the price/perf ratio of sodium so I think we’re likely to see a lot more sodium in applications that don’t require the absolute best energy density. So in a way, sodium might be the front runner, ahead of advanced lithium, in terms of what’s going to be adopted. 😅
E: Also we’re talking sodium batteries in production. If and when double-triple density lithium or another shows up, it might change the calculus depending on price, safety, etc.
Yup, and that’s exactly what we need for transitioning the entire grid to renewables. Mobile applications should be a marginal/convenience thing compared to actual infrastructure.
We’ve seen articles like this one for at least a decade, and real change has never arrived. Either it’s completely poppycock like usual, or prohibitively expensive and borderline UN-craftable outside of a billion dollar lab.
Don’t get too excited.
I find the ICE acronym in a title irritating and lazy.
NEW REVOLUTIONARY BATTERY TECHNOLOGY #46284956947
Uh huh, seen these on a weekly basis for at least 30 years now. Wake me up when you have one in a car
