The fire from the batteries lasts hours, which is a huge issue for everyone else and the fire departments.
Added exposure/free marketing when the news is good. But then if the Duo is having some issues with cracked screens, that'll also get more attention.
If they posted such headlines about Toyota - they wouldn’t get a single ad contract from them.
Because it's novel. Once Tesla trucks are commonplace, it will no longer be noted.
No conspiracy to be had. It's just like the news covers train crashes, and not train arrivals. Because they're unusual.
I guess this headline not saying "Elon Musk's Tesla" or "Elon Musk's SpaceX" in a negative news article is a slight improvement compared to places like CNN.
Teslas are death machines which should be treated as such.
This is despite Tesla beeing involved in a significant number of high profile accidents, many with fatalities [1] [2].
According to NHTSA complaint records it is also one of cars that breaks down most often. Model Y is on the bottom of quality lists in multiple European countries [3].
[1] https://myelectricsparks.com/tesla-crash-germany-father-chil...
[2] https://apnews.com/article/car-crash-tesla-france-fire-be8ec...
[3] https://www.tuev-nord.de/de/wissen/ratgeber-und-tipps-mobili...
clickbait vs statistic:
Gasoline truck :
From 2018 to 2022, large trucks accounted for an estimated 15,462 fires, 46 deaths, 102 injuries, and $416 million in property damage each year. That works out to roughly 40 large-truck fires a day.
Overall, Gas cars ( regular size) , getting on fire more often vs electric cars.
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Tanker-fire-destroys-...
(Also, the rebuilding was epic, the only time I've seen the state and a contractor move quickly: https://longreads.com/2024/07/15/rebuilding-the-maze/ )
"They introduced many innovations as they built their designs, including bell crank suspensions, as pioneers in amphibious tanks, and the use of diesel engines that were less likely to catch fire compared with gasoline tank engines that were being used at the time."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_World_War_II
The answer from an actual firefighter:
" Diesel has a much higher flashpoint. This means the speed of deflagration is much slower. It cannot convert the diesel to vapour as quickly so can't disperse the fuel as quick to spread the surface area.. "
" Leaking petrol is much more dangerous in an accident. It is far easier to ignite. If any leaking petrol contacts the exhaust or brake discs it could ignite causing rapid flame spread trapping people in the car. Diesel won't do this. "
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-for-diesel-cars-to-expl...
Diesel vehicles usually have much larger fuel tanks than gasoline vehicles, so while the chances of a crash causing a diesel fire are lower, the consequences tend to be worse. If the stats are to be believed, the two factors balance each other out.
> definitely
If you're not sure, why the definitely?
Lithium packs can light up (much) faster than you sketch here. The process you describe is correct in sequence but it takes about as long to read that sentence to get to a car that is engulfed in flame. More than one person died from the combination of toxic gases and heat before they managed to get out of the car.
Lithium Ion is a very bad battery type for anything that should be safe or moves, LFP is far better and LTO is better still.
The fact that some people have died in lithium battery fires doesn't tell you if they're a greater risk than petroleum vehicle fires. Around 500 Americans die in vehicle fires every year. Last year, EVs were around 3% of vehicle miles traveled in the US, so if they're as dangerous as petroleum vehicles, we should expect 15 battery fire deaths in 2025. The actual number seems to be 2 or 3.
Diesel vehicles are 11% of vehicle miles traveled in the US, and around 60 people died in diesel vehicle fires last year (12% of vehicle fire fatalities). So they seem to be as dangerous as gasoline vehicles. This is probably because while diesel is more difficult to ignite than gasoline, diesel vehicles tend to have larger fuel tanks, so the harm caused by a diesel fire tends to be greater.
Petroleum is essentially crude oil, diesel is a slightly lighter fraction and gasoline is a much lighter fraction.
Former gas station owner here, I think I know the difference. As for diesel vehicles having larger fuel tanks: they tend to be larger vehicles, and proportionally speaking they don't do much more harm because they are much easier to put out. The best way to deal with a battery fire is a controlled burn until it is spent.
As for the ratio of the fatalities: of course you need to correct for installed base.
I did correct for installed base. I'm using fatalities per vehicle mile traveled. As I said, diesel vehicles are 11% of vehicle miles traveled in the US and responsible for 12% of vehicle fire deaths in the US. EVs are 3% of vehicle miles traveled and less than 1% of vehicle fire deaths, so they're safer than diesel. The only way this could be false is if battery fire deaths are grossly underreported. That seems unlikely to me, as deaths caused by any new technology tend to be overreported. It should also be surprising that battery fire deaths are so rare, because we have little experience dealing with them. Over time, we should expect the danger of battery fires to decrease as technology and emergency training improves.
At this point, I don't know what would change your mind on this topic. I would change my mind if stats showed higher fire fatality rates per vehicle miles traveled for EVs, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I feel like I'm arguing with an anti-nuclear person. Statistics show that nuclear is extremely safe, but anti-nuclear activists ignore stats and point to nuclear accidents and the dangers of radiation. Meanwhile they ignore or discount the harms caused by alternatives. I don't see how your line of argument is any different.
Vehicle fuels?
> I did correct for installed base. > I did correct for installed base. I'm using fatalities per vehicle mile traveled. As I said, diesel vehicles are 11% of vehicle miles traveled in the US and responsible for 12% of vehicle fire deaths in the US. EVs are 3% of vehicle miles traveled and less than 1% of vehicle fire deaths, so they're safer than diesel.
That conclusion doesn't hold up.
This isn't about EVs in general, it is about EV trucks vs Diesel trucks.
> At this point, I don't know what would change your mind on this topic. I would change my mind if stats showed higher fire fatality rates per vehicle miles traveled for EVs, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I feel like I'm arguing with an anti-nuclear person. Statistics show that nuclear is extremely safe, but anti-nuclear activists ignore stats and point to nuclear accidents and the dangers of radiation. Meanwhile they ignore or discount the harms caused by alternatives. I don't see how your line of argument is any different.
Totally different subject.
Yes, I was using an analogy.
I don't know what's going on with you today. You get hung up on language even when you know what I mean. You argue from authority, eg: "former gas station owner here" and "I use Lithium Ion batteries in volume", as if those experiences refute statistics. You don't address my stats about vehicle fire fatalities. You don't explain why you think my conclusion doesn't hold up. And you won't say what would change your mind.
We're not having a debate. You're just contradicting me.
They are refined from petroleum. I wonder if there is a dialect difference here? Also, you really seem intent on proving someone wrong over a relatively inert statement.
First responder needs are a third, somewhat separate/somewhat related concern. You seem really intent on "being right" and aggressive about something, literally anything.
I encourage you to line up and then bundle up your thoughts on this matter, and present them here because, externally, you seem to be all over the place. Also, I don't really feel like further engaging with hostility while it's still morning.
They said "I'm not sure" to the road surface question, and "definitely more of a risk to people".
Roads and people are different things.
Again, roads and people are different.
At this point, it seems like you're attacking them out of a minor, localized grudge, more than anything else.
AKA: troll behavior. So, I am choosing to step away. Feel free to have the last word.
You see a similarity in a post you think is trolling to yours, and then post it... then you're the one comparing your own post to trolling.
I don't know why I'm replying to someone who takes such a hostile tone. "have the last word" is a great idea, you can go for it.
If a battery pack burn less hot and sits higher off the roadway, I can see it being less damaging
Diesel damages the asphalt more in different ways. It attacks the binder in the asphalt and softens it up (after all they are both byproducts of the same crude oil precursor and just want to recombine). This process takes even days so if the cleanup is fast there's minimal damage. Most of the fuel that doesn't burn runs to the side of the road anyway.
Huh, TIL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10973-018-7899-y
Over/under-charged batteries are a safety hazard because they can generate hydrogen gas which can initiate a fire, but the energy released from the fire will be pretty much the same.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/about-20-bodies-f...
I've made a bit of a study of this because I use Lithium Ion batteries in volume. I take a lot of safety precautions because I realize full well how dangerous they are. At the same time I have a 25L canister of diesel and another with gasoline sitting around and I have zero expectation of either of those spontaneously combusting.
The relationship between energy stored and energy released was mostly determined by how big the batteries were, not their state of charge. Only 4 of their tests varied state of charge, and those were all in vacuum (with cells #1 & #6), and state of charge was never below 60%.
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/things-i-won-t-tou...
A lot of dangerous fumes come from the other material burning around the source. And at 1000C plenty of neighboring stuff decides to burn.
The only version of putting it down is letting it burn out.
Morealso diesel is hard to ignite on its own, hence the ICE use compression not spark
Yes, if you watch the local traffic reports. Absolutely. Why do you ask? Are you trying to imply something?
Also i don't want trucks to catch fire everytime they hit a cow or a boar, the roads around where i used to live would be consistently closed :/
My gut feel is that vehicles of all types seem way more disposed to fire than stuff from the 90s through 2010s.
As an aside, some of the vehicles I've worked on serve in oilfields and I'd be horrified to discover 1% of them were catching fire annually.
Applied to residential apartments, there's an average miles per year of 14k or so (should be less here than average based on anecdata, high fuel prices discouraging driving, and everything being close even if you do drive and usually close enough to be walkable, but let's assume 14k/yr is a reasonable baseline), giving us a fire every 1100 vehicles, not every 100.
1/1k is more plausible to me (still "feels" high, but it doesn't trigger the baseline absurdity checks I have in the back of my mind). 1/100 suggests that every year in uni one of my classmates should've had their car burn down. 1/100 suggests that every year my hometown newspaper should report 30 cars burning down -- one every week or two (and given that the newspaper covers the entire county it should actually be 3/week). It's a pretty high rate. The typical person knows hundreds of people well enough that a car fire would often crop up in conversation eventually, and I don't think the typical person knows anyone whose car caught fire. Elaborating on that, I don't think the typical person doesn't know somebody whose car caught fire _ever_, much less in the last year.
On a related note: I wish companies like Tesla, which are conducting live experiments on public highways and thereby inconveniencing 1000s of people when an experiment goes awry, are held accountable and forced to compensate those who got stuck on the highway, missed doctors appointments, job interviews, deliveries, etc. Maybe something like a fine of $5000 per driver impacted should be levied, and given to each driver?
But there must be some compensation to be forced to become an unwilling participant in Musk's experiments! Otherwise what's the disincentive for these experimenters?
My main point, though, was that this idea of yours is great and that the legal structure would be compensation through insurance. The insurers figure out what is risky and what isn't (regardless of the company) and then pass that risk on to their rate payers. The rate payers know that trialing risky technology costs more and it is baked into the operational cost. Yes, people causing accidents should be liable for the time lost! It doesn't matter who causes the accident, Musk or just Joe Schmoe!
HOWEVER, what you'll find out is that one or two meltdowns on I880 is barely going to move the needle. Your average every day collision is going to just get a lot more expensive, with a small fender bender easily causing millions in payouts. The technology companies will still be a drop in the bucket and will happily pass on the risk to their eager customers, who are absolutely thrilled at the idea of cutting out a massive gasoline expendidure from their operation sheets. A 1% or 2% cut in freight cost is massive, and these new trucks are promising to be cost-competitive with RAIL. That is an absolute game changer, and shipping companies would be happy to pay more for insurance since a couple product development failures is absolutely nothing in the big picture of the world and where traffic slowdown comes from.
I love your idea, but if what you want is to punish progressive product companies, this isn't the way to do it.
> A Tesla Semi caught fire on Interstate 880 in Hayward, California, on Tuesday evening, and there was no crash.
Further:
> The driver told officers the truck caught fire and that they didn’t know why. No other vehicles were involved.
Are you still confident that the final reports will be free of interference and the agency investigating anything Tesla (Musk) related won't be gutted before it gets the chance to issue anything damaging?
I suspect that we're going to socialize the costs for getting first responders prepared (in so much as we actually do try to get them prepared) for these type of events. As a concept, that's fine but it leaves a really bad taste in the mouth when you're doing that to the benefit of an actor like Tesla.
The problem is that the costs for preparing for these events are going to be enormous, are going to be shouldered by systems that are struggling to maintain current capabilities and that those costs are not proportional to the benefits being received by having these vehicles operating.
The orgs that create the problem receive billions in value, mostly, from the federal gov't while the costs are shouldered by local gov't. This is before you take into account how those same orgs are behaving in other areas of society.
You said "No" and then to went on to explain your answer as if it was a "Yes"
If you want to read that as not wanting the public to pay for first responders, you're of course free to do so.