wyx087

We have strive for sustainable future. That means to stop burning stuff, which requires moving away from ICE vehicle ASAP. BEV is currently the best option. There are no better alternative. May I refer you to this thread for discussion on whether it is right for government to push for net zero.

The government recently refused to support UK bioethanol production. Sky NewsGovernment will not offer bailout to UK's largest bioetha...Owners Vivergo, a subsidiary of Associated British Foods, had warned that the plant would close without government support, and sources at the company have told Sky News the wind-down process is no... The value for money they talked about is that using the same land for solar panels would generate over 12x the power, or over 30x the miles if powering BEV. https://www.cleanwisconsin.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Corn-Ethanol-Vs.-Solar-Analysis-V3-9-compressed.pdf So, are there any alternatives to battery electric vehicle, available as mass market product right now?

The stat reported by QBE (from the screenshot) is rather small, difficult to make out a trend. But still interesting that 232 EV fires in 2024 vs 131 in 2022, less than double fire incidents despite number of EV's more than doubled. From the way it talks about EV numbers. I don't feel it includes those lower quality and thus higher risk e-scooter or ebikes. Less reporting can be viewed in 2 different ways. I would see it as becoming normal, nothing is ever 100% safe, but as EV themselves becoming normal, unexpected events associated with them are less attention grabbing. Of course, there's always the conspiracy view: something something about narrative.

There's logical inconsistency here. You say blanket are ineffective because it works by deprive fire of oxygen but batteries generate own oxygen. So you are effectively saying fire blanket would not affect the way fire burns. But you then say there's increased risk on removing the blanket. Is this risk due to fire burning more violently? If so, it is contradictory to the first statement. Which 3 ships? Have they been confirmed that fire were started in BEV's?

Please re-read that paragraph and clarify. Was there flowing river of fire by liquid fossil fuel? What exactly is my bias? I was only stating the facts as reported by those car park fire reports? No one has ever brought up that you tried to insisted on the Luton airport fire starting vehicle having batteries. That was you showing your biases. Sounds like you still haven't let it go. Different problem, different fire fighting solution(*). Don't fixate on old solutions. Also, statistically BEV are magnitude less likely to catch fire by itself as previously reported. Therefore the overall fire risk (risk is both danger and probability of loss) is lower despite higher danger(*). Yes, access is always the problem. How does that make any difference between BEV and ICE vehicle, as per topic of discussion? Continued burning stuff (as ICE vehicle do) poses far greater risk to the planet, people and all properties on Earth. BEV gives flexibility in power source. A BEV manufactured 10 years ago have far less per-mile emission than the day it rolled off production line. ICE vehicle's per-mile pollution is fixed the moment it was designed and they typically live for ~20 years from design to scrap. The market have already decided. Alternative to BEV are not ready soon enough or not good enough. BEV is currently the best solution: range, efficiency, re-use, recycle, cost, product packaging (interior space) and future grid integration just to name a few. Easy, they looked at fire claim stats. Their calculation methodology was clearly stated in the report. Please refer back to when the report was discussed. I don't see any point dragging this out, the report was previously discussed. Please do post link to the post where that report was discussed or the report itself. If you don't post any links, I'll assume you have not re-read that report and is just making stuff up. Besides, we are talking about self-ignition. The ratio of power source for Luton airport car park fire doesn't matter for that stat. Logically, if most cars have magnitude less chance to catch fire by itself, there will be so much less fires to begin with. I can see the other side of argument crystal clear. I have acknowledged difficulty dealing with battery thermal runaway many times (see * in this post, but I admit may be not as clearly stated as you liked). However, my point is that it is such a rare event it greatly reduces overall risk (remember, risk is both damage and probability). I feel you are the one who is fixated on one thing and cannot see the bigger picture, from overall risk, to why ICE vehicles are being banned, and to why BEV are chosen by the market as the solution.

I test my fire alarm every year. Recently also installed 2 additional smoke alarms in addition to the 3 standard: heat alarm in kitchen, smoke alarm in first and second floor. A new interconnected one in converted garage, where the consumer unit and Tesla gateway lives. This is so that if things burn due to poor install while pulling 10+ kW for hours overnight, whole house will know as soon as smoke happens. Another interconnected one above the 10+ years old solar inverter, at very top of the loft, above all the solar panels. I have also got home wiring upgraded to latest wiring standard, mainly new metal consumer unit with RCD on everything. I also have this in each consumer unit https://envirograf.com/product/enviroburst-auto-fire-protection/ It's all about risk management. Nothing is ever risk free. Holistically, with main emphasis on climate issue, BEV and heat pumps are so much better than ICE cars and boilers. There is no perfect risk-free solution.

Energy storage, regardless if it’s battery, petrol tank, whatever, is only as safe as the controller handling the safety parameters. Misconfigured controller will cause fire/explosion. Until proven otherwise, any battery that is charging and goes into failure state (eg fire), the root cause will most probably to do with the controller. (BMS) Unable to separate this relationship is like unable to tell fact from fiction.

You just must have the last word don't you. But there's some major logical inconsistency here due to your blinkered anti-EV adoption stance. Yes, agree. Reports all said lack of fire suppression system do majorly contribute to fire spreading. It is no different between EV and ICE so I didn't highlight this. Agree. The delay in getting fire fighting equipment to the source of initial fire is also a contributing factor in those fires started by ICE vehicle, as highlighted by reports. So to suggest electric cars pose higher fire risk due to exact same limitation is just showing your bias and cannot accept that ICE vehicle pose the same if not much higher fire risk. You can't accept, despite you've highlighted it in your post, that once things start burning, the major contributing factors have nothing to do with what's powering the vehicle. The difference I've highlighted can be comes from a simple though experiment, does EV battery behave the same as liquid fuel? No, they wouldn't run along the ground spreading the fire. They are contained within vicinity of the vehicle.

To retrofit 3 phase will require digging up the road/garden/driveway, will be quite disruptive. But at the same time, there's a significant amount of housing stock on looped supply. This will also require digging up the road/garden/driveway to retrofit dedicated wiring for each house. Could be good opportunity to go straight to 3 phase. All new builds now should be 3 phase and no gas. With heat pump, solar + batteries and EV charging. No gas infrastructure would save more than putting in slightly thicker cable with 2 more cores. As I'm on the have side of the social divide. Recent mild heat wave had not been felt. Never exceeded 25c throughout my house, whole day. Gained conservatory as one more usable room that used to get to 35c from the sun. Air-con electricity comes from solar and powerwall at 0 to 7 p/kWh. 😎

Back to school!? Do those going back to school drive? Any excuse for a sales event. Good deals though. back-2-school-sale-event Only £250 off for Dolphin. Could be better.

Fuel itself not ignite easily does not have any bearing on fire risk of the vehicle. Diesel up to now have had more emission equipment that can go wrong and operate at higher combustion temperature. Fire risk is a combination of likelihood and consequence. BEV are far far far less likely to start with as established by reports previously discussed. You are always only focused on the consequence. Batteries burns differently, no doubt about it. But at same time BEV fire wouldn't spread in the same way as running fuel fire that has destroyed multiple car parks. So Liverpool car park fire in 2018 and Luton airport car park fire in 2024 were supposed to be easy to deal with? You haven't read either of those reports that referenced running fuel fire and how it is one of primary cause for fire spreading out of control? Tell me, which of your points you feel are factually correct and you can back it up with third party report/article/links? I'll try to steer away from your personal opinions so that you don't feel I am rubbishing your viewpoints.

There is no safety issue. Real world stats say EV are magnitude less likely to self ignite than diesels. The personal choice part is difficult. ICE cars are like smoking. Something had to be done to persuade people to stop. Just like 2035 deadline (take note, we are still 10 years away for brand new cars, used cars will be available), there were people unhappy about ban on indoor smoking. There's also people unhappy about their increased cost to smoking due to tobacco tax, just like the ratcheting ZEV mandate. Agree on getting cheap (slow AC) charging to everyone. It's the EV's convenience superpower.

Repeatedly publicising your "position" does not change your actual biases. Case in point, the "what if" question. What is the point in talking about this uncertainty and doubt (FUD) when it is factually impossible? Why talk about something that cannot happen? I have never rubbished any personal viewpoint. I only fact check and bring out the truth for things that can be brought into clarity. Often, it is your FUD disguised as "viewpoints" are rubbished. I personally see that as a win. After all, this thread is called "truth about EV". It's quite difficult to arrive home at less than 10% on a daily basis. If need going out, there's still 20 miles of range to get to a rapid charger in most EV's. I've been in this situation with Leaf before, 20min at nearby rapid charger sorted it out. The taxation shortfall is very complex. I personally would rather government announce how they plan to introduce it sooner rather than later. Something like per-mile driven tax for all cars? or rapid charging EV tax? or what? In this thread alone people keeps saying "just you wait until it gets taxed". The uncertainty in future cost is inadvertently stifling adoption.

How? Patents, which protect inventions and processes, typically last for 20 years from the filing date in the United States. This period is fixed and cannot be renewed, after which the invention becomes freely available for others to use and build upon. Also, did you actually watch the video? The idea of li-on battery was initially from a researcher at Exxon, a big fossil fuel company. But the experiment was not a viable usable product. Actually making it into a viable product was done by Goodenough (at Oxford uni) and then Yoshino (for Sanyo/Sony). No fossil fuel company involvement beyond the initial 2v experiment. It's amazing you have the ability to take a straight forward story and twist it into your version just so it can fit into your unchanging closed minded narrative. Here's a text summarised version for anyone interested: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2019/popular-information/

I drove my parents' Megane yesterday and today. It drives very well and works well as a small car. But not for me personally, I think assist stuff are years behind my Tesla, eg. ACC doesn't slow down for curves, seeing stopped car too late, visualisation doesn't show much. The way it operates feels like a 10 years newer Leaf rather than a grounds up EV, mainly still need power button and different options in different sections of menu (Settings but that's only for infotainment, Vehicle is for vehicle setting but not everything, EV menu hides more settings, then drive mode also contains some other settings including interior lightstrip). Worst for me is the size of the key, seems to be a Renault thing. I hope the phone key mentioned by Johnny is a functional thing works like Tesla and BMW. The 2023 Megane also doesn't have one pedal driving. Only 3 regen settings compared to newer Megane or Johnny's 4 settings on the R4. (no firmware feature updates, typical of legacy manufacturers) Personally, I'm looking forward to Nissan Micra (R5 but Nissan style), new Leaf with smaller footprint (Megane sister car?) and VAG ID2 sister cars. We've decided to keep the 11 yo Leaf for a few more years (spent too much on the house over last 2 years, new kitchen, battery, aircon) Also wait and see what development are there for V2H options in the coming years.

mild hybrid ICE: 50% residual PHEV: 50.87% residual BEV: 59.4% residual. The numbers tell a different story to the voice over....... You are more like being a sheep and believe whatever you are told without verifying.

They've also changed policy so that Intelligent customers also get free home energy. Initially IOG only get free car charging. I'll be away, so I'll plug in the Leaf and also charge up home battery during that hour. Get 10 kWh, equate to ~1 day worth of free energy. Then combined with solar, use it to power my Air-Con over Monday and Tuesday. 😁

The beauty with batteries, unlike fossil fuel, is that it can be used many times for many years once it is here.

"modern hero" youtube channel returned on early for horrible interior climate control. Worth double checking you can live with the binary nature of it.

Once again, you are placing your misunderstanding/inability to understand as other people's fault. Also, instead of sniping, I'd appreciate directly speaking. The purpose of big corporation like car makers are always to make money. They don't care what they make. So what they need is clear regulatory framework. There is no continue making same thing as technology always moves on, even if it's still ICE there is still huge engineering efforts required to meet latest emission standards. The purpose of government, despite being only in power for 4 years a time, is (supposed) to do what is best long term for the nation and everyone living in it. There is overwhelming scientific consensus that electrification is required ASAP. The government is therefore looking to electrify everything in a timely manner. This timely manner has been delayed by efforts of incumbent car makers. Not because they don't want to change, but because they didn't innovate in 2010's and need time to plan and make the changes now. Government press release even touches on it: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pathway-for-zero-emission-vehicle-transition-by-2035-becomes-law "Following extensive consultation with industry and manufacturers, the mandate provides them with the certainty they have called for to safeguard skilled British jobs." There is a difference between "formed closed minds" and able to understand how the world works. I'm afraid you are firmly in the the former based on the amount of extremely biased small channel social media videos you share.

No, I'm laying out history. Funding for research happens on both sides, no doubt about it, that's how academia works. But funding by "interested bodies" specifically for "foregone conclusion" only happens by fossil fuel industry simply because that is the only way to get the conclusion. Funding for scientific research will always have a goal, but the conclusion is usually not foregone. Again, let me point you to my previous post. Where papers arguing for climate change are usually written by large number of authors and peer reviewed, published in well regarded journals. Paper against climate change are typically written by the single person getting paid off. Then published in poorly peer reviewed journals. If you are arguing otherwise, you should be the one providing sources. As for Al Gore's organisation. You must be talking about this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Investment_Management I've gone through a number of search results and I've not seen any record of shady practices by this organisation. Have you? I sense there is a misunderstanding between providing funding to research and having editorial control over said report/paper's conclusion. Unless you can prove the latter, as I have by fossil fuel industry, just saying "significant funding (mostly from high worth individuals)" doesn't mean much. Oh and Graham, no one is taking what the authorities tells us being 100%. They are influenced by lobby groups, for cars it's the incumbent manufacturers.

So in order to get an analysis paper like this published. Not only need to fund every single person at top (10+ people). Also the journal itself and every person who had reviewed it. 2024 state of the climate report: Perilous times on planet Earth | BioScience | Oxford Academic The publishing journal is said to date back to 1964. So who was funding them for 60 years? BioScience - Wikipedia In contrast to this paper by Singer, who is now well known to have been receiving fossil fuel money. A single person wrote it. 04-singerSanter The publishing journal for Singer's paper is not only a lot shorter, it is well known to "publishing papers that could not have passed any reasonable peer review process" Energy & Environment - Wikipedia So, yes of course what you say is a problem in accedemia. As evident by the latter paper. To receive fossil fuel funding requires "correct conclusion", there's many records of such shady behaviour. But to reach consensus of opposite, how many people must be paid off? Where does so much funding come from?

The case with Copernicus is that he made an observation and discovery that was never previously considered or observed. The "consensus" at the time was deep rooted in religion, which are resistant to change. Climate change consensus is very different. There is no resistance to change. The growing evidence for climate change is there to be challenged within the scientific peers. The only thing today's "outcasts and pariahs" can muster are rehashed old data trying to stir up FUD in general public. As someone who has a scientific background. You must know the scientific method and the rigour required to publish peer reviewed papers. Based on that knowledge, can you really call those "outcasts and pariahs" credible if they are publishing in non-scientific papers not requiring peer review?

It is unfortunate electricity zonal pricing has been dropped. Too many vested interest by old players scared of change.

Not all new cars must be electric by 2030. 20% are still allowed to be ICE powered. It's a link to the funding sources page, forum happen to pick that graph. On that page, it says 65% of revenue comes from 100,000 individual donors (eg. not big corporations pushing a narrative). That's one of many non-profit organisations. What you say is true and still happens today, case in point the orange tit US administration. But it doesn't invalidate overwhelming consensus from scientists. It goes back to the question, who is paying off every single scientists in order to reach consensus? Of course, there is also the argument that individuals could be considered as luddites for raising new ideas within the consensus. It is totally true that science is always changing as more discoveries are made. But we've been down this road in late 1900's, unless there's totally new discoveries, every single re-hash of previously known ideas against climate change drumming fear, uncertainty and doubts (FUD) should be ignored. Again, see the book Merchants of Doubt.