Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?

[AusWolf]

IMO one of the big problems with EVs is that they're trying to replace internal combustion like-for-like.

There's no need for a city runabout to be capable of seating five people and travelling 200km at 120km/h when 95% of the journeys are 10km trips for a single occupant never reaching speeds above 80km/h Moving two tons of vehicle that's sized/shaped like a traditional ICE car is expensive and inefficient, whether that's fossil fuels, hydrogen, or electricity. Big EVs for high-speed, long-range journeys are crazy heavy.

I'm not advocating everyone switches to ebikes, but we need the industry to start producing smaller, lighter, more practical cars for the majority of journeys. When it comes to long-distance trips, a PHEV or just modern low-emission, highly efficient ICE is still a reasonable option. It's just important to change the outdated mindset of "one car that does everything" when it's hugely wasteful for 95% of its intended use.

We have the technology to produce lightweight (like 600kg) EVs with two seats and some cargo that can reach 100km/h with a 50km range, whilst meeting current safety requirements. That's not going to be ideal for highway journeys, but it's going to be fraction of the cost of current EVs and far more useful to most people most of the time.

A good point.

What we also need, imo, is
1. A better battery technology, because lithium is too big, heavy, expensive, and dangerous in case of an accident, and
2. A change in mindset that there is one single technology that is good for everyone for every purpose. We may not have enough fossil fuels to power all vehicles indefinitely, but we may have enough for some, and
3. Better ICE technologies with cheap and easily manufacturable fuel. Hydrogen maybe?

 

[Frick]

I don't want to go on a long vacation drive, and have to stop for 5-7 hours to charge, its much nicer having that freedom to fill up quickly and move on, also I'd like to go on rural nature sight seeing. Maybe someday car companies will have a battery exchange program, you can just pull in, drop your battery, and fresh one is put in, all automated with a card scan or something. That would be pretty cool, but even then I read something about their not being enough natural resources for everyone to have EV cars... not sure how accurate that was though.

You don't fully charge the car though. That top gear episode with the electric BMW is very old. Modern chargers can take the car from 10% to 80% in thirty minutes. More time at the chargers compared to gas, but several hundred miles in 30 minutes is not to be sneezed at. Ideally one can spend that time using restrooms and walk about a bit or whatever.

That would definitely change with mass adoption which would inevitably drive electricity costs up to the sky.

The energy question is definitely the big question in all of this. It will still be cheaper than gas though.

5-7k for a battery is a HUGE amount of money!

Well yeah, and that is just the battery, not labour (hence the $13k). But again one has to look at the total cost of the car over the time one owns it. It's less money than those miles in a gas car.

To be honest, the appeal of EVs is the same to me like that of solar panel homes. Sure, you save on energy consumption from the grid/gas, but you spend infinitely more on initial costs and replacements.

Depending on circumstances, solar can repay itself within say 5 years. But again, it depends on many, many things. Up here where I live it wouldn't make much sense until long term energy storage is a thing (4 hours of "daylight" in the winter).

He used to, but not anymore ever since my workplace started charging EV users for car charging.

Surely not enough to make it as expensive as buying gas? But yeah, those cars are for very specific use cases. For me a car is something that does those short trips AND also those massive roadtrips along the Norwegian coast, and do long trips on roads with no fuel stations or chargers. EVs are not quite there for my specific case, but they're getting there. A plug in hybrid would be the best for me, but I will never have the economy for one. So old Volvos it is, which is fine.

Those salesmen will sell you a glass of water for a million bucks if you let them.

"Is the car in great condition?"
"Of course."
"And how's the engine?"
"Yes!"

You know the sayings: "The only people shadier than car salemen are mattress salesmen" and "You cannot be an honest car salesman".

 

[Space Lynx]

Might be best if we move the convo back to hydrogen only moving forward, I don't want mods to shut the thread down. As from time to time I find some interesting news on hydrogen and post here.

Might not be a bad idea to make an "Official EV owners thread and general discussion of EV" though if someone wants to do that.

edit: I'd be happy for it to continue, but I know mods tend to shut down threads and lock them, so I'd just prefer that not happen here.

edit 2: I did not know solar panels could last only 5-10 years, I thought they lasted 20-30 years... wow I will have to read up on that

 

[AusWolf]

The energy question is definitely the big question in all of this. It will still be cheaper than gas though.

I'm not so sure. We'll have to wait and see. There's a ton of pressure from the (UK) government on people to buy EVs. They want to stop sales of ICE cars by 2030, for example. Let's just say that I never put any trust in what a/the government wants. It is extremely rare for them not to have a hidden agenda.

Edit: Personally, I think they're pushing it because electricity is something they can control, while oil isn't. They never cared about saving the planet, so why should I assume that they do now?

Well yeah, and that is just the battery, not labour (hence the $13k). But again one has to look at the total cost of the car over the time one owns it. It's less money than those miles in a gas car.

Don't forget to add the cost of buying the car, which is also way more than an ICE car, even a new one.

Depending on circumstances, solar can repay itself within say 5 years. But again, it depends on many, many things. Up here where I live it wouldn't make much sense until long term energy storage is a thing (4 hours of "daylight" in the winter).

5 years is quite bad considering that the average lifespan of solar panels is between 5 and 10 years, depending on quality (as far as I know). Other than that, it's the same thing here in cloudy, rainy England.

Surely not enough to make it as expensive as buying gas? But yeah, those cars are for very specific use cases. For me a car is something that does those short trips AND also those massive roadtrips along the Norwegian coast, and do long trips on roads with no fuel stations or chargers. EVs are not quite there for my specific case, but they're getting there. A plug in hybrid would be the best for me, but I will never have the economy for one. So old Volvos it is, which is fine.

I don't know. Not long ago, he complained to me about a £150 bill that he got for a month's worth of EV charger usage. I pay the same amount for a month's worth of petrol (gasoline). Sure, I only travel half as much as he does, but I've got a sporty Ford Fiesta ST.

 

[DOA]

So many misconceptions. I will try to dispel some.

Solar panels generally degrade, not fail. 30 years for home solar is likely with modern panels. 5-7 year payback is about normal around here.

How Long Do Solar Panels Actually Last?

Do solar panels go bad? What is a solar panel's typical life expectancy? Can you do anything to make them last longer? We answer these questions - and more.

www.solarreviews.com

EVs are a much better solution here in CA and the rest of the world is following. Audi/BMW/MB are struggling with efficiency. Hyundai and Tesla are leading the pack, they go further on the same amount of electricity. The Model Y is selling very well in part because it's cheap total ownership cost. Utilities are controlling demand with time of use pricing so the grid is doing well. Charging at home is about 1/5 the cost of gas/diesel, but that varies by location. About 1/10 company parking lots have solar and free slow charging.

Typical EV trip is not really different from a diesel trip. Our truck has 600 mile range, EV car just over 300. We visit Darling Daughter often. Same scenario for both - get up early, drive 2 hours and sit down for a nice breakfast (truck sits if we take it, car charges). Arrive after a couple more hours (truck sits, car slow charges at her place). Visit about four hours or take her car for site seeing. Head home two hours, stop for dinner (truck sits, car charges) and two more hours home (truck needs diesel, car gets plugged in). We travel the same speeds so time is similar. The car is much nicer due to the power to weight ratio and handling.

We have two around the US trips in our car. Charging has been a problem twice that I can remember. Both due to detours that never seemed to end, we charged at RV parks. Yes, some inconvenience, such is the price of dealing with climate change.

 

[AusWolf]

So many misconceptions. I will try to dispel some.

Solar panels generally degrade, not fail. 30 years for home solar is likely with modern panels. 5-7 year payback is about normal around here.

How Long Do Solar Panels Actually Last?

Do solar panels go bad? What is a solar panel's typical life expectancy? Can you do anything to make them last longer? We answer these questions - and more.

www.solarreviews.com

EVs are a much better solution here in CA and the rest of the world is following. Audi/BMW/MB are struggling with efficiency. Hyundai and Tesla are leading the pack, they go further on the same amount of electricity. The Model Y is selling very well in part because it's cheap total ownership cost. Utilities are controlling demand with time of use pricing so the grid is doing well. Charging at home is about 1/5 the cost of gas/diesel, but that varies by location. About 1/10 company parking lots have solar and free slow charging.

Typical EV trip is not really different from a diesel trip. Our truck has 600 mile range, EV car just over 300. We visit Darling Daughter often. Same scenario for both - get up early, drive 2 hours and sit down for a nice breakfast (truck sits if we take it, car charges). Arrive after a couple more hours (truck sits, car slow charges at her place). Visit about four hours or take her car for site seeing. Head home two hours, stop for dinner (truck sits, car charges) and two more hours home (truck needs diesel, car gets plugged in). We travel the same speeds so time is similar. The car is much nicer due to the power to weight ratio and handling.

We have two around the US trips in our car. Charging has been a problem twice that I can remember. Both due to detours that never seemed to end, we charged at RV parks. Yes, some inconvenience, such is the price of dealing with climate change.

I'm not in the mood to research solar panels, so I'll take your word for it.

As for EVs, I'm glad that the technology works for you. I still don't think that it's good for everyone. I, for example, live in a first-floor apartment with a parking space that's about 20 metres (about 60 ft) away. It's literally just that - a parking space designated for me. How would I charge an EV? Hang an extremely long extension cord out of the window, hoping that nobody steals it and let the cold winter air and rain in? Or wait for a few of hours at a public charging point every couple of days? Or fight with my colleagues who also have EVs for a company charging point, and pay for charging? Yep, it's not free in most places anymore.

Also, I wouldn't compare a car to a truck. Here in Europe, people don't have trucks. We have small, lightweight economy cars and sporty hatchbacks. As a comparison, my '16 Fiesta ST has 197 hp, weighs about 1,100 kg (about 2,400 lbs) and has a range of around 300-350 miles per tank, depending on traffic and road conditions. A similar-age and similarly priced Nissan Leaf comes with a 110 hp motor and weighs 1,500 kg (about 3,300 lbs) and its range is rated at 84 miles with the 24 kWh battery, or 107 for the 30 kWh one. That's a power-to-weight ratio of 179 hp/tonne for my Fiesta, or 73 for the Leaf. That's 2.45x worse! Not to mention the abysmal range. Sure, you can get a Tesla, or anything new with a better range if you pay a lot more, and you still won't have the power-to-weight ratio that I have - or you have it, and more, but you pay your ass off to get it. Not to mention that a lot of people couldn't afford my Fiesta, let alone something more expensive.

Let's not even go into the topic of climate change. I don't want to write another essay, I've been off-topic for long enough already.

All in all, I'm sure EVs are awesome if 1. you're loaded with cash, 2. live in a suburban area with a garage, 3. live in a country/state that's teeming with charging points. The last point can be fixed by governments and corporations, but the first two can't.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Shocking study finds EVs cost more to fuel than gas cars in late 2022 — here are 3 easy ways to save cash no matter what you drive

What are the costs of charging up an electric car?

finance.yahoo.com

Alternative Fuels: A rich man's game.

 

[Assimilator]

IMO one of the big problems with EVs is that they're trying to replace internal combustion like-for-like.

There's no need for a city runabout to be capable of seating five people and travelling 200km at 120km/h when 95% of the journeys are 10km trips for a single occupant never reaching speeds above 80km/h Moving two tons of vehicle that's sized/shaped like a traditional ICE car is expensive and inefficient, whether that's fossil fuels, hydrogen, or electricity. Big EVs for high-speed, long-range journeys are crazy heavy.

I'm not advocating everyone switches to ebikes, but we need the industry to start producing smaller, lighter, more practical cars for the majority of journeys. When it comes to long-distance trips, a PHEV or just modern low-emission, highly efficient ICE is still a reasonable option. It's just important to change the outdated mindset of "one car that does everything" when it's hugely wasteful for 95% of its intended use.

We have the technology to produce lightweight (like 600kg) EVs with two seats and some cargo that can reach 100km/h with a 50km range, whilst meeting current safety requirements. That's not going to be ideal for highway journeys, but it's going to be fraction of the cost of current EVs and far more useful to most people most of the time.

An excellent insight, and one I've discussed with my friends many times (we used to work for a company that wrote software to do with EV charging). The problem is that the US EV manufacturers are building vehicles for a massive highway system with potentially large distances between recharge points, which necessitates large and heavy and expensive battery packs, and the European and Japanese vehicle manufacturers seem intent on aping them... even though Europe and Japan have the advantage of not being anywhere as large as the USA, thus implicitly being more amenable to shorter-range vehicles.

The problem, really, is that vehicle manufacturers have been intellectually bankrupt for decades at this point; the European and US incumbents have never had to make an effort to innovate due to a mostly captive market, and the Japanese ones last had to in the 1980s when they ate the USA manufacturers' lunch. Since then it's been the same old recycled models year after year, with the only changes being government-mandated improvements to efficiency and pollution emissions. The EVs available from these companies seem barely more than a sop so that they can tick off the "renewable energy" box on their investor prospectus. Once again, capitalism ruins everything.

A good point.

What we also need, imo, is
1. A better battery technology, because lithium is too big, heavy, expensive, and dangerous in case of an accident, and

Oh please. Lithium is no more dangerous than gasoline, it's just that we've had literally centuries to understand and contain hydrocarbon-based fuels. In contrast lithium-ion batteries were invented less than half a century ago; if we had as much experience with them as we do with hydrocarbons, we wouldn't have any issues with them.

As for EVs, I'm glad that the technology works for you. I still don't think that it's good for everyone. I, for example, live in a first-floor apartment with a parking space that's about 20 metres (about 60 ft) away. It's literally just that - a parking space designated for me. How would I charge an EV? Hang an extremely long extension cord out of the window, hoping that nobody steals it and let the cold winter air and rain in? Or wait for a few of hours at a public charging point every couple of days? Or fight with my colleagues who also have EVs for a company charging point, and pay for charging? Yep, it's not free in most places anymore.

You could use one of the schemes setup by the UK government designed to assist people in your exact situation. This applies to renting too.

 

[AusWolf]

Oh please. Lithium is no more dangerous than gasoline, it's just that we've had literally centuries to understand and contain hydrocarbon-based fuels. In contrast lithium-ion batteries were invented less than half a century ago; if we had as much experience with them as we do with hydrocarbons, we wouldn't have any issues with them.

We have methods to extinguish petrol and diesel fires. We don't have anything against burning lithium, as far as I know.

You could use one of the schemes setup by the UK government designed to assist people in your exact situation. This applies to renting too.

From the e.on website: "Not all homes are suitable for a home charger right now. It's important that you have off street parking so we can connect the charger to your electricity supply so it's likely you'll need to live in a property with a drive or garage." I don't have a drive or garage, so I'm not eligible.

From pod-point.com: "A home charger is a compact weatherproof unit that mounts to a wall with a connected charging cable or a socket for plugging in a portable charging cable." There is no wall next to my parking space, so again, it won't work.

From the RAC website: "The charger will also require access to your home wifi signal to take advantage of the smart tools, such as remote charging and access to off-peak energy tariffs, so it may not want to be at the furthest corner from your router." My Wifi signal doesn't reach my parking space, so again, it doesn't work.

If you disregard all the above, I still have to pay 25% of the installation fee, plus buy the car which is either a weak and slow Nissan Leaf with an 80-mile range (and a 6-7 year-old battery), or something I can't afford.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Lithium is no more dangerous than gasoline

https://www.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/ppqqwg
Gasoline cars don't erupt in flames when you hit them in the battery pack. I honestly haven't seen a car this explosive since the Ford Pinto (which had a flaw that generated sparks during rear-end collisions aimed at the gas tank).

We don't have anything against burning lithium, as far as I know.

We do.

You surround the car in a steel tank and drown it in water. Another competitor: https://www.emicontrols.com/en/fire/solutions-for-electromobility/

Seeing the damn size of the equipment needed to put out a Lithium fire should show you just how dangerous this technology is. Ask any fire deparment what they have to do to put out a Tesla fire, and they'll tell you: 30,000 Gallons of water, or the above container-tank.

Tesla Fire in Texas Crash Was Not How It Was Reported, Says Fire Chief

Persistent news reports that the 2019 Model S burned for hours and stymied fire officials are wrong, he says.

www.caranddriver.com

The initial fire was quickly put out, he said, but the vehicle smoldered and continued to ignite after that, which is why firefighters used a small-diameter hose to keep water running onto the area, to deal with any small flames that started. Pine sap from the trees also caused some flare-ups, Buck said. The bottom of the car, where the battery pack is located, was in contact with the ground, which made it more difficult to get water where it needed to go. When the firefighters finally managed to raise the car, they were also able to stop the chain reaction.

By the time even the smallest embers were finally out, many hours after the crash, somewhere between 25,000 and 30,000 gallons were used, Buck said. This was only possible because the incident happened in a residential area with a hydrant nearby. Had the crash happened on a highway, his department’s trucks, which carry between 500 and 1000 gallons, would not have been able to keep on lightly soaking the car for that much time.

 

[thesmokingman]

https://www.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/ppqqwg
Gasoline cars don't erupt in flames when you hit them in the battery pack. I honestly haven't seen a car this explosive since the Ford Pinto (which had a flaw that generated sparks during rear-end collisions aimed at the gas tank).



We do.

View attachment 282612

You surround the car in a steel tank and drown it in water. Another competitor: https://www.emicontrols.com/en/fire/solutions-for-electromobility/

Seeing the damn size of the equipment needed to put out a Lithium fire should show you just how dangerous this technology is. Ask any fire deparment what they have to do to put out a Tesla fire, and they'll tell you: 30,000 Gallons of water, or the above container-tank.

Tesla Fire in Texas Crash Was Not How It Was Reported, Says Fire Chief

Persistent news reports that the 2019 Model S burned for hours and stymied fire officials are wrong, he says.

www.caranddriver.com

If you're gonna take that tact, don't forget the Tesla that oh, fell off a 300ft cliff and everyone survived.

 

[dragontamer5788]

If you're gonna take that tact, don't forget the Tesla that oh, fell off a 300ft cliff and everyone survived.

Everyone survived this explosion. I know of explosions where nobody survives, particularly because the electronic locks fail on a Tesla and you can't open the doors anymore when a fire erupts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/23/man-died-burning-tesla-because-its-futuristic-doors-wouldnt-open-lawsuit-alleges/

The last moments of Awan’s life were gruesome and excruciating. After the crash, the Tesla’s lithium ion battery caught fire, according to a wrongful-death lawsuit. Smoke — and then flames — filled the car, suffocating Awan and burning him from his feet up. Outside, a crowd gathered but couldn’t help.

That’s because the car’s retractable door handles, which are supposed to “auto-present” when they detect a key fob nearby, malfunctioned and first responders weren’t able to open the doors and save Awan, the suit alleges.

There's lots of people who have died to these malfunctioning door locks. Trapped inside, unable to escape their Tesla as they burn.

--------

This fire issue is pretty much an open-and-shut case. Teslas require far more effort from Fire Departments to put out, and we've got video showing how the slightest impact on the huge 1-ton battery pack can instantly cause an explosion. As well as multiple reports, and even fatalities of these events.

We're not in "debate" mode as far as society goes. We know what must be done. We need to equip fire departments with isolation chambers (like https://www.emicontrols.com/en/fire/solutions-for-electromobility/) to protect us from the multi-hour Electric Vehicle fires. Period. Fire deparments are already buying these things as electric cars become more popular.

As a society, we've already crossed the Rubicon. I recognize EVs are now popular. So now comes just... ya know... making sure people know what the tradeoffs are. Time for all of our fire deparments to buy this thing.

 

[thesmokingman]

Everyone survived this explosion. I know of explosions where nobody survives, particularly because the electronic locks fail on a Tesla and you can't open the doors anymore when a fire erupts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/23/man-died-burning-tesla-because-its-futuristic-doors-wouldnt-open-lawsuit-alleges/

--------

This fire issue is pretty much an open-and-shut case. Teslas require far more effort from Fire Departments to put out, and we've got video showing how the slightest impact on the huge 1-ton battery pack can instantly cause an explosion. As well as multiple reports, and even fatalities of these events.

We're not in "debate" mode as far as society goes. We know what must be done. We need to equip fire departments with isolation chambers (like https://www.emicontrols.com/en/fire/solutions-for-electromobility/) to protect us from the multi-hour Electric Vehicle fires. Period. Fire deparments are already buying these things as electric cars become more popular.

As a society, we've already crossed the Rubicon. I recognize EVs are now popular. So now comes just... ya know... making sure people know what the tradeoffs are. Time for all of our fire deparments to buy this thing.

It's like you've just crawled out from under a rock?? Btw the Tesla that went off a cliff didn't explode, lmao.

Government data show gasoline vehicles are up to 100x more prone to fires than EVs

Aside from the argument that gasoline vehicles operate via combustion, a study shows how prevalent gas vehicle fires are compared to EVs.

electrek.co

 

[dragontamer5788]

It's like you've just crawled out from under a rock??

You want a 3rd example?

Driver was behind wheel when Tesla crashed and ignited in Spring, NTSB says

Although one man was found in the back seat and another in the passenger seat, investigators say both were in the front seats with belts buckled at the time of the crash.

abc13.com

I can do this all day. The Lithium EV fire is far more dangerous than a normal gasoline fire. Everyone died in this case btw, because the doors locked the victims in.

Normal vehicles have... ya know... working doors with mechanical locks. Tesla tries to be "smart" and "futuristic" and therefore their doors malfunction in these cases.

 

[thesmokingman]

You want a 3rd example?

View attachment 282614

Driver was behind wheel when Tesla crashed and ignited in Spring, NTSB says

Although one man was found in the back seat and another in the passenger seat, investigators say both were in the front seats with belts buckled at the time of the crash.

abc13.com

I can do this all day.

You're trolling boy. Everyday there are hundreds of ICE fires.

More Than 150 Gas Car Fires Per Day — Can We Please Get Serious About Electric Car Battery Fires? - CleanTechnica

Electric car batteries can catch fire. Okay. They always make headlines. There are 500 gasoline fires a day and few of them ever make the news. It's time to take a breath and get over the fear of electric cars,

cleantechnica.com

 

[dragontamer5788]

You're trolling boy. Everyday there are hundreds of ICE fires.

Yes. I recognize that the EV online community turns a blind eye at this obvious issue and yall are super defensive about it.

I ask the neutral reader this: what equipment are Fire Deparments equipping themselves with to protect you from EV fires? Don't trust my word, trust your local fire deparment. See how they're planning on fighting these fires. Go on, ask them. I dare you.

 

[thesmokingman]

Yes. I recognize that the EV online community turns a blind eye at this obvious issue and yall are super defensive about it.

I ask the neutral reader this: what equipment are Fire Deparments equipping themselves with to protect you from EV fires? Don't trust my word, trust your local fire deparment. See how they're planning on fighting these fires. Go on, ask them. I dare you.

Hah, change the subject much trolly?

BMW recalling 1.03 mln vehicles worldwide on engine fire risk

BMW will recall 1.03 million worldwideover potential fire risks, the German automaker said on Wednesday, its third recall over the issue since 2017.

www.reuters.com

More than 280,000 Hyundai and Kia SUVs recalled over fire risk

More than 245,000 Hyundai Palisade and 36,000 Kia Telluride SUVs with model years 2020 through 2022 are being recalled in the U.S.

www.cbsnews.com

Ford recalls nearly 519,000 U.S. vehicles over fire risks

Ford is recalling nearly 519,000 SUVs in the U.S. over fire risks from possible cracked fuel injectors and will urge owners to get their cars inspected.

www.cnbc.com

 

[dragontamer5788]

Hah, change the subject much trolly?

I'm not trolling. But I've recognized that if posting a video of this fire happening before your own eyes can't convince you, nothing will.

I've posted 3 well known cases of Tesla fires, 2 of which led to fatalities. All three requiring 30,000 gallons of water to put out, across the USA in different states and circumstances. The facts stand as they are.

Another case: https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a...ddenly-catching-fire-being-engulfed-in-flame/

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622344844999012353

I have no expectation that this 4th video will convince you. But maybe the other readers can see.

 

[thesmokingman]

I'm not trolling. But I've recognized that if posting a video of this fire happening before your own eyes can't convince you, nothing will.

I've posted 3 well known cases of Tesla fires, 2 of which led to fatalities. All three requiring 30,000 gallons of water to put out, across the USA in different states and circumstances. The facts stand as they are.

Another case: https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a...ddenly-catching-fire-being-engulfed-in-flame/

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622344844999012353

I have no expectation that this 4th video will convince you. But maybe the other readers can see.

You are definitely trolling hard. You're suggesting that EV fires are worse and happen more and we all need to fear. Put away the FUD dude, stop trolling. Fires happen, they happen a lot more with ICE than EV, though they both have potential to catch fire regardless.

 

[dragontamer5788]

You're suggesting that EV fires are worse

Do ICE fires require 30,000 gallons of water to extinguish?

Do you care to even read my discussion points?

 

[thesmokingman]

Do ICE fires require 30,000 gallons of water to extinguish?

Do you care to even read my discussion points?

Dude, you're gonna go on ignore soon. Keep changing goal post. ICE fires are different from lithium so they have different techniques etc etc. Is this now how ppl are gonna judge fires then?

 

[dragontamer5788]

Dude, you're gonna go on ignore soon. Keep changing goal post. ICE fires are different from lithium so they have different techniques etc etc. Is this now how ppl are gonna judge fires then?

Okay, lets go back to my original post.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/ppqqwg
Do ICE vehicles explode in flames like this immediately, when they jump a curb and their undercarriage strikes something hard?

 

[AusWolf]

Anyway, I've just found this:

I'm not sure if it's been posted or not. Looks interesting, I'm watching it now.

 

[Assimilator]

Anyway, I've just found this:

I'm not sure if it's been posted or not. Looks interesting, I'm watching it now.

This just reinforces what I've been saying about the auto manufacturers being intellectually bankrupt. BMW did the liquid hydrogen dance back in the 1990s, and then a bit more in the 2000s, and both times it was "oh that's nice, but impractical" and everyone immediately forgot about it. So for Toyota/Yamaha to do it in 2023 is just silly; what exactly are they trying to prove? Until or unless they solve the containment problem, they might as well not bother.

 

[AusWolf]

This just reinforces what I've been saying about the auto manufacturers being intellectually bankrupt. BMW did the liquid hydrogen dance back in the 1990s, and then a bit more in the 2000s, and both times it was "oh that's nice, but impractical" and everyone immediately forgot about it. So for Toyota/Yamaha to do it in 2023 is just silly; what exactly are they trying to prove? Until or unless they solve the containment problem, they might as well not bother.

I think it might work in the future, just probably not in the form of a 500-ish HP sporty V8 with the equivalent of 18 mpg. Also, I'm gonna do some more reading on fuel cell technology in the near future.