Electric vehicles

[user 43593]

I am late to this thread and have a genuine interest in the debate. In the first instance, I would like an independent and comprehensive report concerning the Luton airport car park fire. If it is to be of any use to me it has not to be about beliefs or speculations of the Bedfordshire Fire Chief... just give me the facts (and only the facts) so that I may decide for myself what I choose to understand from those facts.

I still have no idea whether I am for the changeover to EVs or not. Whether it is the climate change (used to be called global warming) protagonists or the WEF conspiracy theorists, I am left wondering where the truth actually is. Some people appear to be EVangelists in the worst possible way and do not tolerate any argument or even questions. e.g. what were the precise circumstances of the destruction of a home in St. Austell? I have not seen any reasoned debate or clear investigation of this event. I understood that the motability vehicle involved was not on charge at the time.

During my last decade at work, I was driving in time dependent circumstances up to 600 miles in a day. I can see that an EV would probably not suit that particular use case. I was invited by a local Tesla dealer for a test drive and the test vehicle was priced around the £70,000 mark. My enquiries about range per charge were enough to tell me that, broadly speaking, I could expect 200 miles from that vehicle but the Tesla dealer was quick to tell me that I could add another 100 miles to that range for another £15,000! Deity! I have never considered spending £85,000 on any model car. My current car is a low mileage 64 plate diesel, Jaguar XF, which I purchased 4 years ago in pristine condition with 11,000 miles on the odometer. Just £12,000 to you guv'nor. On a recent run to Inverness from south Bedfordshire, I averaged 55 miles per gallon.

The increase in EV fires has gone up 83% from July 2022 until June 2023 per Honeywell Safety and Productivity Solutions. This represents 130 incidents the previous year for the same period and 293 incidents in the period surveyed. This will not surprise anyone who understands that EV vehicle numbers have gone up and there are now more in circulation and being used on our roads. What is less easy to follow are the reasons for the fires... if they were all caused by an EV terrorist, then the figures can be explained away easily.

If the EV fires were the result of spontaneous combustion, I would not wish that fact to be buried under the welter of nonsense spoken on both sides of the EV fence. ICE cars may also suffer from an inordinate amount of fires when after they are stolen for joyriding or other criminal activities, they are frequently set on fire deliberately to hide fingerprints and other evidences. That factor must skew any attempt at reliable statistical analysis.

Car publications may offer some solutions but peurile articles that lack any basic rigour are singularly unhelpful. YouTube Channels like that belonging to John Cadogan are attractive, in they appear to be technical but the viewpoint can be seen as biased, because it is supporting a particular position. I would like to be shown information that does not have the taint of bias and then I can gather the data and arrive at a conclusion based upon facts and unmanipulated evidential data.

EDIT: spelling corrections

 

[Spectric]

When has a politician ever imagined or delivered?

Only imagine, engineers deliver.

 

[pauljhaigh58]

Electric diggers/dumper are a god send when working inside buildings and work just as good as diesel
Paul

 

[Norman Boyes]

What about all the terraced houses where the front door opens onto the pavement, you cannot trail charging cables across a pavement and fitting a kerbside post charger outside every house is going to take some time and if they all need to use a local public charging point then there will be queues .

people in terraced houses should not be allowed to have a car.

 

[Norman Boyes]

When has a politician ever imagined or delivered?

They pretty much all imagine they have delivered.

 

[sploo]

Which was my point with my previous statement. They = anyone you like because it's not going to happen.

Does it need to happen though (EV chargers in lamp posts)? By the time EV ownership is widespread the battery technology may have progressed to such a level that charging only takes minutes (and is thus little different to going to a petrol station).

Sounds (from your next post) like you're doing some impressive stuff with the solar and water. Solar panels are definitely on my list. We've got as far as having all the water used for the garden collected in multiple water butts spread around the outside of the house, but that's about it in terms of real "green" measures.

 

[mcostello]

Politicians deliver, but the enormous piles of what they deliver do not seem to do My garden any good.

 

[Ozi]

That’s at odds with what others such as the National Grid say. It’s interesting to note that annual electricity consumption in the UK has trended down from 394 in 2002 to 321 terrawatt-hours in 2022.

Even if there would not be capacity today if everyone switched immediately everyone is not ready to switch so I don’t think this is a problem.

What is true is that although we have the gross capacity, we don't yet have it in the places it's needed. Getting power into some cities and to some remote areas needs investment. Part of the answer is also smaller vehicles where appropriate.

 

[Ozi]

No it doesn’t.

Oh yes it does - I refer you to your other answer

 

[Ozi]

I am late to this thread and have a genuine interest in the debate. In the first instance, I would like an independent and comprehensive report concerning the Luton airport car park fire. If it is to be of any use to me it has not to be about beliefs or speculations of the Bedfordshire Fire Chief... just give me the facts (and only the facts) so that I may decide for myself what I choose to understand from those facts.

I still have no idea whether I am for the changeover to EVs or not. Whether it is the climate change (used to be called global warming) protagonists or the WEF conspiracy theorists, I am left wondering where the truth actually is. Some people appear to be EVangelists in the worst possible way and do not tolerate any argument or even questions. e.g. what were the precise circumstances of the destruction of a home in St. Austell? I have not seen any reasoned debate or clear investigation of this event. I understood that the motability vehicle involved was not on charge at the time.

During my last decade at work, I was driving in time dependent circumstances up to 600 miles in a day. I can see that an EV would probably not suit that particular use case. I was invited by a local Tesla dealer for a test drive and the test vehicle was priced around the £70,000 mark. My enquiries about range per charge were enough to tell me that, broadly speaking, I could expect 200 miles from that vehicle but the Tesla dealer was quick to tell me that I could add another 100 miles to that range for another £15,000! Deity! I have never considered spending £85,000 on any model car. My current car is a low mileage 64 plate diesel, Jaguar XF, which I purchased 4 years ago in pristine condition with 11,000 miles on the odometer. Just £12,000 to you guv'nor. On a recent run to Inverness from south Bedfordshire, I averaged 55 miles per gallon.

The increase in EV fires has gone up 83% from July 2022 until June 2023 per Honeywell Safety and Productivity Solutions. This represents 130 incidents the previous year for the same period and 293 incidents in the period surveyed. This will not surprise anyone who understands that EV vehicle numbers have gone up and there are now more in circulation and being used on our roads. What is less easy to follow are the reasons for the fires... if they were all caused by an EV terrorist, then the figures can be explained away easily.

If the EV fires were the result of spontaneous combustion, I would not wish that fact to be buried under the welter of nonsense spoken on both sides of the EV fence. ICE cars may also suffer from an inordinate amount of fires when after they are stolen for joyriding or other criminal activities, they are frequently set on fire deliberately to hide fingerprints and other evidences. That factor must skew any attempt at reliable statistical analysis.

Car publications may offer some solutions but peurile articles that lack any basic rigour are singularly unhelpful. YouTube Channels like that belonging to John Cadogan are attractive, in they appear to be technical but the viewpoint can be seen as biased, because it is supporting a particular position. I would like to be shown information that does not have the taint of bias and then I can gather the data and arrive at a conclusion based upon facts and unmanipulated evidential data.

EDIT: spelling corrections

Personally I'm greatly in favor of EVs but I cannot see them being suited to your 600 miles a day usage any time soon, horses for courses. In the same way that petrol was not the go to for lorries diesel being much better suited. I am hopeful that hydrogen may be an answer to this issue - we shall see.

Vehicle fires, where the vehicle is the cause are fairly rare events. The data for EVs is not yet mature the fleet is still slewed to newer vehicles, batteries and associated safety systems are developing rapidly so things will change. Given that there is data to show that EVs are 19 times less likely to catch fire than IC vehicles.

There are differences in how and when vehicles burn. Petrol cars tend to burn when the engine is hot, most fires start in electrical systems, people tend to be around when it happens, if there is a fuel leak you can smell it etc. EVs that catch can do it any time, there may be no obvious warning

 

[user 43593]

Personally I'm greatly in favor of EVs but I cannot see them being suited to your 600 miles a day usage any time soon, horses for courses. In the same way that petrol was not the go to for lorries diesel being much better suited.

Yes, me neither. Until the situation improves with faster charging (hopefully less prone to thermal mishap too) less waiting time for vacant charging points, universality of charging supply methods and availability at every point for every EV, rather than specoial deals which suppliers keep exclusive to themselves and their clients, the current state of EV uptake appears to be something of a chaotic busted flush. e.g. if you have arrived needing a charge at a motorway service station and you have to wait an hour to get hooked up to a charging point that is working, you could end up overstaying the nominal two hours. Will the parking companies let you off with the extortionate fees that they levy?

I had a Dual Mass Flywheel breakdown at a motorway service station which I had managed to drive into. The AA came to attend and took about 45 minutes to find me and then get to the root of the problem. Tthe technician then called for a recovery truck to take me and my vehicle home. It was a journey of some 150 miles to my home and it was past midnight so not especially busy at the services. I was fined £120 for over staying the two hours... We left the services at around 2 hours and 5 minutes past me entering the car park with a non-functioning engine. The image taken of me leaving showed my car on the back of an AA recovery truck. It required several months of e-mail argument before the parking company agreed that I was not deliberately parking in a manner that would avoid paying penalty fees!

I recall the incident because if an emergency engine failure does not qualify as requiring a parking company to condider waiving their ruinous penalty fees, I have no idea what will be an exceptional circumstance that needs the application of a little common sense. I raise this point because other issues have become obvious post the Luton airport car park fire. The bill was estimated at around £35 million and the insurer of the car allegedly behind the start of the incident, was apparently heard on local radio (which I missed so cannot coroborate this) saying they will not pay out their insured's claim. Another persson claimed that they were only offered 1/3rd of the insured value for their car because it was a total write off on acount of being burnt to the ground and having no residual value. While these are peripheral issues, they do have a bearing on how the public will view the adoption of an EV. My own use case makes me wonder how the legislators will view me when I do not buy an EV.

I am hopeful that hydrogen may be an answer to this issue - we shall see.

I see that storage of hydrogen is an obvious issue. The Japanese (Toyota, I think) have an engine that produces its own hydrogen from water, so the storage issue goes away. How would a company charge for the fuel is an interesting connundrum. The engine is run on water being the fuel and the hydrogen is extracted while the engine is running.

Vehicle fires, where the vehicle is the cause are fairly rare events.

I am happy to agree with that proposition but I still want to understand what happened in St Austell and Luton. Why is the information not being made available to the general public? A conspiracy theorist may say it is because the data would damage the sales of EVs. In any event, something is causing a global slow down in the rush to purchase an EV and second user vehicles are losing value like a burning house. (pun not intended)

Some car manufacturers are cutting their own EV production on that back of the decreased demand for EVs. The very high purchase costs and the low resale value may be a large contributing factor. Next to our homes, cars are most probably the next major purchase we make and most people will not want to see their car lose its value rapidly.

The data for EVs is not yet mature the fleet is still slewed to newer vehicles, batteries and associated safety systems are developing rapidly so things will change. Given that there is data to show that EVs are 19 times less likely to catch fire than IC vehicles.

Who has produced the data? What is their interest in producing the data? Is there any single source that has absolutely no vested interest in the outcome of such data publicaation?

There are differences in how and when vehicles burn. Petrol cars tend to burn when the engine is hot, most fires start in electrical systems, people tend to be around when it happens, if there is a fuel leak you can smell it etc. EVs that catch can do it any time, there may be no obvious warning

It apparently matters not if you see your EV starting to catch fire (Luton?). Extinguishing a Lithium ion fire is clearly a very challenging problem. Whether the fire brigades will develop a rapid and better means of fire containment remains to be seen. I think one Nordic country lifts the burning car into some sort of metal container, then fills it with water and leaves it for several weeks until there is no chance of reignition. I suspect this will not be very practical for large populations.

EDIT: spelling corrections

 

[bilboburgler]

Ok, let's knock some facts back

Vehicle Duty should be around £650 a year if it were paying for UK roads. The difference is made up from Fossil Fuel taxes and VAT.

Yes we need more electricity to support electrical cars, yes we are building more power generation units and a bunch of other technologies to fill the gaps (not perfect but fossil fuel supply is not perfect), stupidly we are putting them in the sea but at least they can be bigger there and the winds are stronger up there.

FF vehicles are terribly inefficient, if you start with oil in the ground you lose half of it by the time it gets to your local petrol station, then you throw away another 2/3rds dealing with terrible internal combustion engines and then you have to transmit that energy from the engine to the road via a thing that stops and starts, changes speed all the time.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Oh yes it does - I refer you to your other answer

No really it doesn’t. What you pay now is Vehicle Excise Duty. It is not the same as “Road Tax”. VED is a tax based on emmisions and is a contributor to general taxation. It is not ring fenced for roads. As per my previous reply to Phil VED is greater than the cost of roads. However it’s a false argument to state VED covers roads. The reality is a proportion of general taxation, which includes VED pays for roads, in exactly the same way as it pays for the NHS and other state initiatives. Someone who doesn’t pay VED is still contributing to roads in the same way as someone who pays no tax but does pay VED is contributing to HS2.

Edit: Because there is a tendency for “Anti” arguments to focus on things that fit their perspective I've added some more background. Cost of roads falls in to two different categories. New roads and road maintenance. New roads and upgrades are funded through DfT, maintenance is through local authorities. It is all too easy to compare apples and oranges. VED revenue is greater than the cost of new roads, which is what Road Tax was introduced in 1920 to cover. Road tax was ring fenced for new road construction. Road tax ended in 1937. VED is less than the full cost of roads when including maintenance. Maintenance of roads has always been from general taxation even when there was “Road Tax”. A clear issue is that heavier vehicles cause more damage to roads than light vehicles and that’s a problem. A road usage tax (like fuel duty) is going to be needed in the future. But that’s a different discussion.

 

[Ozi]

Yes, me neither. Until the situation improves with faster charging (hopefully less prone to thermal mishap too) less waiting time for vacant charging points, universality of charging supply methods and availability at every point for every EV, rather than specoial deals which suppliers keep exclusive to themselves and their clients, the current state of EV uptake appears to be something of a chaotic busted flush. e.g. if you have arrived needing a charge at a motorway service station and you have to wait an hour to get hooked up to a charging point that is working, you could end up overstaying the nominal two hours. Will the parking companies let you off with the extortionate fees that they levy?

I had a Dual Mass Flywheel breakdown at a motorway service station which I had managed to drive into. The AA came to attend and took about 45 minutes to find me and then get to the root of the problem. Tthe technician then called for a recovery truck to take me and my vehicle home. It was a journey of some 150 miles to my home and it was past midnight so not especially busy at the services. I was fined £120 for over staying the two hours... We left the services at around 2 hours and 5 minutes past me entering the car park with a non-functioning engine. The image taken of me leaving showed my car on the back of an AA recovery truck. It required several months of e-mail argument before the parking company agreed that I was not deliberately parking in a manner that would avoid paying penalty fees!

I recall the incident because if an emergency engine failure does not qualify as requiring a parking company to condider waiving their ruinous penalty fees, I have no idea what will be an exceptional circumstance that needs the application of a little common sense. I raise this point because other issues have become obvious post the Luton airport car park fire. The bill was estimated at around £35 million and the insurer of the car allegedly behind the start of the incident, was apparently heard on local radio (which I missed so cannot coroborate this) saying they will not pay out their insured's claim. Another persson claimed that they were only offered 1/3rd of the insured value for their car because it was a total write off on acount of being burnt to the ground and having no residual value. While these are peripheral issues, they do have a bearing on how the public will view the adoption of an EV. My own use case makes me wonder how the legislators will view me when I do not buy an EV.


I see that storage of hydrogen is an obvious issue. The Japanese (Toyota, I think) have an engine that produces its own hydrogen from water, so the storage issue goes away. How would a company charge for the fuel is an interesting connundrum. The engine is run on water being the fuel and the hydrogen is extracted while the engine is running.


I am happy to agree with that proposition but I still want to understand what happened in St Austell and Luton. Why is the information not being made available to the general public? A conspiracy theorist may say it is because the data would damage the sales of EVs. In any event, something is causing a global slow down in the rush to purchase an EV and second user vehicles are losing value like a burning house. (pun not intended)

Some car manufacturers are cutting their own EV production on that back of the decreased demand for EVs. The very high purchase costs and the low resale value may be a large contributing factor. Next to our homes, cars are most probably the next major purchase we make and most people will not want to see their car lose its value rapidly.

Who has produced the data? What is their interest in producing the data? Is there any single source that has absolutely no vested interest in the outcome of such data publicaation?

It apparently matters not if you see your EV starting to catch fire (Luton?). Extinguishing a Lithium ion fire is clearly a very challenging problem. Whether the fire brigades will develop a rapid and better means of fire containment remains to be seen. I think one Nordic country lifts the burning car into some sort of metal container, then fills it with water and leaves it for several weeks until there is no chance of reignition. I suspect this will not be very practical for large populations.

EDIT: spelling corrections

Sorry this will be a quick reply not covering all of your points.

Carpark service thievery not surprising, very unfair

The Luton fire

in less I have missed a later update.

The storage of Hydrogen is less of a problem than you think, I have run crash tests on H2 vehicles and would be happy to drive/fill one given the infrastructure.

The factor of 19 data came via two organizations one of which was Bedford Fire brigade, I will try to find it when I have time.

You will never put out a Lithium fire, don't try with a burning fuel tank either, ever seen a fuel fed fire, stand well back. With either if it's in a bad place, ie. car park it won't make much difference.

I don't know about the engine running on water ( I used to work for Toyota) I think this is wrong, hydrogen can obviously be made from water but you need an energy source it's not going to be 100% efficient so I don't see how that could work. It sounds like you are talking about a fuel cell but they need to be fed the hydrogen from else where.

Pushed for time will try to get back with that data

 

[DrPhill]

The Japanese (Toyota, I think) have an engine that produces its own hydrogen from water, so the storage issue goes away.

splitting water takes energy - the energy that is released again when hydrogen is burned back to water.
where does the energy that does the split come from? It must be stored on the vehicle or supplied by a cable. If the latter then recharging with hydrogen can only happen while stationary and next to a suitable power source.

I suppose that does avoid the need for a battery but still requires hydrogen storage in the vehicle.

if the hydrogen is generated while travelling there will need to be a battery, and an electrolysis unit as well as a hydrogen ICE.

what an ingenious way to cling on to personal transportation.

 

[user 43593]

what an ingenious way to cling on to personal transportation.

??? I am not sure that I understand you. Are you suggesting that there is no need for social movement, i.e. that everyone should stay in their dwellings and meet online only?

 

[user 43593]

Sorry this will be a quick reply not covering all of your points.

No worries. Thank you for your reponse.

Carpark service thievery not surprising, very unfair

Sadly, the umbrella of "business" covers a multitude of sins.

The Luton fire

View attachment 173212

in less I have missed a later update.

Quite. I knew this and quoted Mr Hopkinson elsewhere in the forum. Something to the effect that this well paid Chief of Fire Services in Bedfordshire (my home county) could publicly speculate and believe whatever he wanted to but it does not make his beliefs facts nor does it count as an investigation.

The storage of Hydrogen is less of a problem than you think, I have run crash tests on H2 vehicles and would be happy to drive/fill one given the infrastructure.

The factor of 19 data came via two organizations one of which was Bedford Fire brigade, I will try to find it when I have time.

The perfunctory conclusions of Mr Hopkinson do not pass muster for rigour. I wonder if we, the public, must accept his hastily arrived at conclusions as the officical position of the Bedfordshire Fire Service.

You will never put out a Lithium fire, don't try with a burning fuel tank either, ever seen a fuel fed fire, stand well back. With either if it's in a bad place, ie. car park it won't make much difference.

My understanding is that burning Lithium creates its own oxygen. In which case removing that arm of the fire triangle is going to prove challenging.

I don't know about the engine running on water ( I used to work for Toyota) I think this is wrong, hydrogen can obviously be made from water but you need an energy source it's not going to be 100% efficient so I don't see how that could work. It sounds like you are talking about a fuel cell but they need to be fed the hydrogen from else where.

Thank you. I have only seen small amounts of information. It appears that the hydrogen could be manufacured and stored on the vehicle, once it was produced by the technology in the engine. Presumably the storage tank in the car would be appropriately reinforced. This solution could obviate the need for a hydrogen pumping and storage station on the lines of current petrol stations, was how I understood what was being advanced.

Pushed for time will try to get back with that data

 

[John Brown]

No worries. Thank you for your reponse.

Sadly, the umbrella of "business" covers a multitude of sins.

Quite. I knew this and quoted Mr Hopkinson elsewhere in the forum. Something to the effect that this well paid Chief of Fire Services in Bedfordshire (my home county) could publicly speculate and believe whatever he wanted to but it does not make his beliefs facts nor does it count as an investigation.

The perfunctory conclusions of Mr Hopkinson do not pass muster for rigour. I wonder if we, the public, must accept his hastily arrived at conclusions as the officical position of the Bedfordshire Fire Service.

My understanding is that burning Lithium creates its own oxygen. In which case removing that arm of the fire triangle is going to prove challenging.

Thank you. I have only seen small amounts of information. It appears that the hydrogen could be manufacured and stored on the vehicle, once it was produced by the technology in the engine. Presumably the storage tank in the car would be appropriately reinforced. This solution could obviate the need for a hydrogen pumping and storage station on the lines of current petrol stations, was how I understood what was being advanced.

Not quite sure how you think the hydrogen would be produced in the vehicle, without electricity (batteries again), or fossil fuels, which are what we're supposed to be avoiding. If you have any links, I'd be interested to read further.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

That has been my argument all along. I cannot imagine pavements being 'cut up' to have cable ducting installed every few yards. Kerbside charging would be like waving a red cloth to the 'imbecile brigade', saying; "Come on, vandalise me".. That's my rant over for toddy.

The average car does ~7500 miles pa - 150 miles per week.

Recharging the battery - once a week for an hour on a 50kw charger - or a couple of "to-ups".

The solution is not a fixed infrastructure for every property without the ability to off road charge.

The solution is adequate charging capacity at m/way services, shops, retail parks, public car parks, hotels, cinemas, etc etc etc.

That capacity seems to lag demand in some places at some times is a current issue, but soluble!

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Politicians deliver, but the enormous piles of what they deliver do not seem to do My garden any good.

I would have thought the enormous piles would only be good for the garden!