JeffA:
Several tesla drivers burned to death because its basically impossible to put out a battery fire.
I thought you were being over dramatic, but actually 53 dead so far. tesla-fire.com/
Can’t be very good for global warming all these fires [emoji6]
I would check those numbers…
Case 171 lists 4 dead, but the actual news report states only 3 people died, 1 person in the Tesla (the driver) died, the passenger was badly injured taken to hospital, the other 2 fatalities were in the minivan that the Tesla collided with.
“teslafire.com”?
A commercial site that records Tesla fires, has several examples of Tesla fires? Not a shock is it?
Asking for examples of something isn`t a good way to harvest data.
And what benchmark is the incidence of Tesla fires measured against?
According to the American based NFPA average incidence of vehicle fires:
Tesla one per…210 million miles
Average one per…19 million miles.
So fire is over ten times more likely in non Tesla vehicles.
Having said that, a battery fire may well be a very hot one, and give off more toxic fumes than other fires, but the incidence seems lower.
On the net, which I can’t find now but, in essence it was saying that to operate this kind of swap operation, requires quite literally twice the amount of batteries to operate one vehicle. Suffice to say, does the convenience outweigh the infrastructure required and the amount of resources mother earth has to give?
I wonder if a company will evolve that hires out battery packs for lorries a bit like Chep hire out pallets.
Would it be viable for a lorry driver to pull into a battery station and simply change the battery pack for a fully charged one that’s rented to the transport company.
If a company emerged that operated like this they could even have their own means of generating electricity in some parts of the country, such as a solar farm or wind turbine generator, fully charged battery packs could probably be transported some distance to battery stations.
I’m not saying this is how things will work out, it’s just an idea.
Sent from my mobile via Tapatalk.
This is about the only way that it will work for the forseeable future. needs the manufacturers to agree on a conector though and some kind of universal mechanisum to allow the battery to be swapped easily.
Years ago i worked in a morrisons rdc the llop’s we used the batteries were on dollies so one could go into the battery area slide the battery out onto a cradle jack it up and slid it into an empty charging bay and reverse the process with a fully charged one. it ment anyone regardless of size or strength could change the battery in about 5-10 min
Carryfast:
Bearing in mind that recharge time increases pro rata with battery capacity.
For a given charger power, yes - however it is already possible to charge the large truck battery packs in the same short time window (<45 mins) providing you have enough juice from the charger.
Megawatt (1,000kW - around 4 times the output of a car fast charger) chargers are production ready, and already being rolled out - albeit slowly.
You do need electric grid feed upgrades in many instances however - not exactly trivial.
As with all things in life, there are use cases where an EV truck makes sense. I do a lot of pallet network work at the moment, multi-drop deliveries and collections. Lots of stopping and starting so plenty of free energy from regeneration, and a long run is less than 250 miles. Truck is stationary back at base for at least 45 minutes before the night trunker heads out, so charging window is fine.
My stint on milk tankers was also suitable. 300 miles of trunking/trailer swaps followed by 45 minutes at a dairy whilst tipping. Again, another good charging window.
cooper1203:
This is about the only way that it will work for the forseeable future. needs the manufacturers to agree on a conector though and some kind of universal mechanisum to allow the battery to be swapped easily.
They can’t even agree on a common connector for chargers. Isn’t there half a dozen different kinds?
Carryfast:
Bearing in mind that recharge time increases pro rata with battery capacity.
For a given charger power, yes - however it is already possible to charge the large truck battery packs in the same short time window (<45 mins) providing you have enough juice from the charger.
Megawatt (1,000kW - around 4 times the output of a car fast charger) chargers are production ready, and already being rolled out - albeit slowly.
You do need electric grid feed upgrades in many instances however - not exactly trivial.
As with all things in life, there are use cases where an EV truck makes sense. I do a lot of pallet network work at the moment, multi-drop deliveries and collections. Lots of stopping and starting so plenty of free energy from regeneration, and a long run is less than 250 miles. Truck is stationary back at base for at least 45 minutes before the night trunker heads out, so charging window is fine.
My stint on milk tankers was also suitable. 300 miles of trunking/trailer swaps followed by 45 minutes at a dairy whilst tipping. Again, another good charging window.
Martin.
The rule still holds more battery capacity = more recharge time all else being equal and it will take longer to fill up a battery than a petrol/LPG/hydrogen tank for the equivalent range.
Faster charging means more expense in infrastructure to take the increased load and more energy losses in heat and higher price per kWh.
More demand for electric also means more nuclear energy requirement thereby worsening the odds of a nuclear disaster.
To be fair that would also include hydrogen production.
All to solve a non existent problem although ditching diesel in favour of LPG would certainly solve the diesel emissions issue.
Carryfast:
Bearing in mind that recharge time increases pro rata with battery capacity.
For a given charger power, yes - however it is already possible to charge the large truck battery packs in the same short time window (<45 mins) providing you have enough juice from the charger.
Megawatt (1,000kW - around 4 times the output of a car fast charger) chargers are production ready, and already being rolled out - albeit slowly.
You do need electric grid feed upgrades in many instances however - not exactly trivial.
As with all things in life, there are use cases where an EV truck makes sense. I do a lot of pallet network work at the moment, multi-drop deliveries and collections. Lots of stopping and starting so plenty of free energy from regeneration, and a long run is less than 250 miles. Truck is stationary back at base for at least 45 minutes before the night trunker heads out, so charging window is fine.
My stint on milk tankers was also suitable. 300 miles of trunking/trailer swaps followed by 45 minutes at a dairy whilst tipping. Again, another good charging window.
Martin.
The rule still holds more battery capacity = more recharge time all else being equal and it will take longer to fill up a battery than a petrol/LPG/hydrogen tank for the equivalent range.
Faster charging means more expense in infrastructure to take the increased load and more energy losses in heat and higher price per kWh.
More demand for electric also means more nuclear energy requirement thereby worsening the odds of a nuclear disaster.
To be fair that would also include hydrogen production. All to solve a non existent problem although ditching diesel in favour of LPG would certainly solve the diesel emissions issue.
You really would wheelspin your car in circles around your children, laughing, and sticking two fingers up to them, shouting “[zb] you, and your future.”
Carryfast:
Bearing in mind that recharge time increases pro rata with battery capacity.
For a given charger power, yes - however it is already possible to charge the large truck battery packs in the same short time window (<45 mins) providing you have enough juice from the charger.
Megawatt (1,000kW - around 4 times the output of a car fast charger) chargers are production ready, and already being rolled out - albeit slowly.
You do need electric grid feed upgrades in many instances however - not exactly trivial.
As with all things in life, there are use cases where an EV truck makes sense. I do a lot of pallet network work at the moment, multi-drop deliveries and collections. Lots of stopping and starting so plenty of free energy from regeneration, and a long run is less than 250 miles. Truck is stationary back at base for at least 45 minutes before the night trunker heads out, so charging window is fine.
My stint on milk tankers was also suitable. 300 miles of trunking/trailer swaps followed by 45 minutes at a dairy whilst tipping. Again, another good charging window.
Martin.
The rule still holds more battery capacity = more recharge time all else being equal and it will take longer to fill up a battery than a petrol/LPG/hydrogen tank for the equivalent range.
Faster charging means more expense in infrastructure to take the increased load and more energy losses in heat and higher price per kWh.
More demand for electric also means more nuclear energy requirement thereby worsening the odds of a nuclear disaster.
To be fair that would also include hydrogen production. All to solve a non existent problem although ditching diesel in favour of LPG would certainly solve the diesel emissions issue.
You really would wheelspin your car in circles around your children, laughing, and sticking two fingers up to them, shouting “[zb] you, and your future.”
The irony when that’s exactly how I see this nuclear, biomass, solar panel based energy policy.
All based on the total lie that CO2 is wot cooked Venus.
As opposed to what plants and trees love to consume to give us oxygen in return.
If you weren’t burning the trees and burying the fields under solar panels that is.
So I’m guessing that you’ve taken your own advice and bought an EV and gone all electric at home for heating and cooking.
Carryfast:
The irony when that’s exactly how I see this nuclear, biomass, solar panel based energy policy.
All based on the total lie that CO2 is wot cooked Venus.
As opposed to what plants and trees love to consume to give us oxygen in return.
If you weren’t burning the trees and burying the fields under solar panels that is.
Do you honestly believe that you have a more accurate, truthful grasp of this than the many thousands of well educated scientists, whom have devoted their careers to carrying out extensive, peer reviewed research in this area over decades?
Carryfast:
The irony when that’s exactly how I see this nuclear, biomass, solar panel based energy policy.
All based on the total lie that CO2 is wot cooked Venus.
As opposed to what plants and trees love to consume to give us oxygen in return.
If you weren’t burning the trees and burying the fields under solar panels that is.
Do you honestly believe that you have a more accurate, truthful grasp of this than the many thousands of well educated scientists, whom have devoted their careers to carrying out extensive, peer reviewed research in this area over decades?
Martin.
No surprise that the anything but green, pro nuclear, pro tree burning and pro solar panel destruction climate scammers refuse to recognise the equally qualified scientists on the sceptic side who’ve rightly called out the climate scam.
The fact is your whole case is based on the laughable, deliberate, selective double standard that it was supposedly CO2 that cooked Venus.
But atmospheric pressure and distance from the Sun froze Mars.
Bearing in mind that 95% of Mars’ thin atmosphere is still a lot more CO2 blanketting the planet proportionally than even 0.1% let alone 0.04% of Earth’s.
Carryfast:
The irony when that’s exactly how I see this nuclear, biomass, solar panel based energy policy.
All based on the total lie that CO2 is wot cooked Venus.
As opposed to what plants and trees love to consume to give us oxygen in return.
If you weren’t burning the trees and burying the fields under solar panels that is.
Do you honestly believe that you have a more accurate, truthful grasp of this than the many thousands of well educated scientists, whom have devoted their careers to carrying out extensive, peer reviewed research in this area over decades?
Carryfast:
Bearing in mind that recharge time increases pro rata with battery capacity.
For a given charger power, yes - however it is already possible to charge the large truck battery packs in the same short time window (<45 mins) providing you have enough juice from the charger.
Megawatt (1,000kW - around 4 times the output of a car fast charger) chargers are production ready, and already being rolled out - albeit slowly.
You do need electric grid feed upgrades in many instances however - not exactly trivial.
As with all things in life, there are use cases where an EV truck makes sense. I do a lot of pallet network work at the moment, multi-drop deliveries and collections. Lots of stopping and starting so plenty of free energy from regeneration, and a long run is less than 250 miles. Truck is stationary back at base for at least 45 minutes before the night trunker heads out, so charging window is fine.
My stint on milk tankers was also suitable. 300 miles of trunking/trailer swaps followed by 45 minutes at a dairy whilst tipping. Again, another good charging window.
Martin.
The rule still holds more battery capacity = more recharge time all else being equal and it will take longer to fill up a battery than a petrol/LPG/hydrogen tank for the equivalent range.
Faster charging means more expense in infrastructure to take the increased load and more energy losses in heat and higher price per kWh.
More demand for electric also means more nuclear energy requirement thereby worsening the odds of a nuclear disaster.
To be fair that would also include hydrogen production.
All to solve a non existent problem although ditching diesel in favour of LPG would certainly solve the diesel emissions issue.
You are fine, I will keep my 3.2L diesel over an EV … thank goodmyou can still buy them here in Australia.
Carryfast:
The irony when that’s exactly how I see this nuclear, biomass, solar panel based energy policy.
All based on the total lie that CO2 is wot cooked Venus.
As opposed to what plants and trees love to consume to give us oxygen in return.
If you weren’t burning the trees and burying the fields under solar panels that is.
Do you honestly believe that you have a more accurate, truthful grasp of this than the many thousands of well educated scientists, whom have devoted their careers to carrying out extensive, peer reviewed research in this area over decades?
Martin.
Yes Martin. I’m afraid he does.
Define ‘peer’ and ‘he’.Obviously only the word, of those on message with the anything but green, tree burning and solar panel and nuke fuelled utopia, matters.
