You're Being Lied to About Electric Cars

[HitchHiker71]

Am I wrong thinking that when the battery pack is damaged is usually when the battery pack can experience a thermal runaway resulting in a fire or explosion hazard regarding an LFP EV battery ? Am I wrong thinking it's the amount of lithium in the battery pack that is the cause a larger fire because the thermal runaway reaction is larger ?

I have read that EV battery fire isn't covered under many home owner or auto insurance policies. This would be a concern for me.

Bill

No - that is not correct. Thermal runaway occurs due to overheating of the pack - hence the term thermal runaway. This is very rare with a good BMS like Tesla has. Sure it happens but by the numbers it’s 25 times less likely to occur than a ICE vehicle catching fire. Thermal runaway can occur due to overcharging - such as wrapping the L3 charger handle with a cold rag - which some people are known to do to cut down on charge times - but this causes overheating to occur. Thermal runaway can also occur due to a puncture or pack exposure to excessive heat - like a very hot fire adjacent to the vehicle itself.

It’s not the actual lithium that catches fire - it’s the liquid electrolytes that are part of the jelly roll that, when damaged, can leak the liquid electrolytes, which then causes combustion. This can occur due to puncture, contact with water, or exposure to extremely high temperatures.

Without the electrolytes in the battery packs - there’s really no risk of fire. This is why Tesla has been working on dry battery electrolytes for both the anode and cathode in their 4680 batteries. The Cybercell has a dry anode but still has a wet cathode. Work is complete on bringing dry cathode to the 4680 packs and this will ramp into production later this year and on into 2025. Once done, even NMC/NCM/NCA 4680 packs will have much lower fire risk than they already do today.

LFP packs, due to irons inherent stable chemical structure, are much safer and have much better thermal stability, and are therefore much less prone to thermal runaway, even when damaged or subjected to water or high temps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[easyrider]

It’s not the actual lithium that catches fire - it’s the liquid electrolytes that are part of the jelly roll that, when damaged, can leak the liquid electrolytes, which then causes combustion. This can occur due to puncture, contact with water, or exposure to extremely high temperatures.

Without the electrolytes in the battery packs - there’s really no risk of fire.

Ok. Eventually they might figure it out but as of now some ev's do start fires. All Sonos ev's had to be destroyed because they couldn't find the problem with their EV. Many ev's including BMW, Hyundai, Chysler and Chevy have had recalls on the ev's because of battery fires. Chevy went as far as to tell Bolt owners to park 50ft away from combustibles before the recall repairs.

You can call it fud but it's a deserved fud as of now, imo.

Bill

 

[DrQ]

... Chevy went as far as to tell Bolt owners to park 50ft away from combustibles before the recall repairs.

You can call it fud but it's a deserved fud as of now, imo.

Bill

16 out of several hundred thousand units.

And AGAIN:

Consumer Alert: Kia Issues 'Park Outside' Recall for Certain 2020-2024 Telluride Vehicles for Fire Risk​

Owners should park vehicles outside and away from structures until the free repair is complete

Consumer Alert: Kia Issues 'Park Outside' Recall for Certain 2020-2024 Telluride Vehicles for Fire Risk | NHTSA​

Safety recall for certain 2020-2024 Telluride vehicles because front power seat motor could overheat, potentially resulting in a fire.

www.nhtsa.gov

 

[Brett]

Ok. Eventually they might figure it out but as of now some ev's do start fires. All Sonos ev's had to be destroyed because they couldn't find the problem with their EV. Many ev's including BMW, Hyundai, Chysler and Chevy have had recalls on the ev's because of battery fires. Chevy went as far as to tell Bolt owners to park 50ft away from combustibles before the recall repairs.

You can call it fud but it's a deserved fud as of now, imo.

Bill

OK, but not surprising that "FUD" natural gas explosions and FUD gasoline home / auto explosions are also covered under homeowners insurance and auto insurance

(imo )

 

[easyrider]

16 out of several hundred thousand units.

Nope, not even close.

Bill

During the same time period, Hyundai built 325,000 Konas. That means nearly two-thirds of all Elantras were recalled during that time, while only about a quarter of Konas were recalled.

Can Electric Cars Catch Fire While Charging?​

Unfortunately, electric vehicles will catch fire while charging or immediately thereafter. The most famous incidents regarding this troubling phenomenon involved the recall of more than 60,000 Chevrolet Bolts for bursting into flames while connected to the charger. The company even went so far as to say that Bolt owners should park their cars at least 50 feet away from anything else because of the risk of fire. Of course, this was before the cars were fixed during the recall.

 

[DrQ]

Nope, not even close.

Bill

During the same time period, Hyundai built 325,000 Konas. That means nearly two-thirds of all Elantras were recalled during that time, while only about a quarter of Konas were recalled.

Can Electric Cars Catch Fire While Charging?​

Unfortunately, electric vehicles will catch fire while charging or immediately thereafter. The most famous incidents regarding this troubling phenomenon involved the recall of more than 60,000 Chevrolet Bolts for bursting into flames while connected to the charger. The company even went so far as to say that Bolt owners should park their cars at least 50 feet away from anything else because of the risk of fire. Of course, this was before the cars were fixed during the recall.

I was referring to your Cevey Bolt EV reference. Check MY quote.

Don't misquote me,troll

 

[easyrider]

OK, but not surprising that "FUD" natural gas explosions and FUD gasoline home / auto explosions are also covered under homeowners insurance and auto insurance

(imo )

Homeowners insurance doesn't necessarily cover negligence. It can be considered negligence when you park a recalled for battery fire EV in your garage and it starts a fire.

Bill

 

[Brett]

Homeowners insurance doesn't necessarily cover negligence. It can be considered negligence when you park a recalled for battery fire EV in your garage and it starts a fire.

Bill

But what about dangerous invisible natural gas explosions Dr. Bill ?

.
August 12, 2024

House explosion in Maryland kills 2 and damages nearby homes​

https://apnews.com/article/house-ex...firefighters-ad47258b59e465e3f048fc8213a59bd2

 

[easyrider]

I was referring to your Cevey Bolt EV reference. Check MY quote.

Don't misquote me,troll

Maybe you should articulate your responses better. Are you saying 16 and not 60,000 Chevy Bolts weren't recalled for battery fire danger ?

Bill

 

[easyrider]

But what about dangerous gas explosions Dr. Bill ?

.

House explosion in Maryland kills 2 and damages nearby homes​

https://apnews.com/article/house-ex...firefighters-ad47258b59e465e3f048fc8213a59bd2

What about them ?

Bill

 

[DrQ]

Maybe you should articulate your responses better. Are you saying 16 and not 60,000 Chevy Bolts weren't recalled for battery fire danger ?

Bill

Maybe you should RTFM before you spout your stuff. READ the entire post.

 

[davidvel]

Homeowners insurance doesn't necessarily cover negligence. It can be considered negligence when you park a recalled for battery fire EV in your garage and it starts a fire.

Bill

Homeowner insurance doesn't cover negligence? What on earth are you talking about? First you falsely claim HO insurance doesn't cover EV battery fires, now you claim it doesn't cover negligence? This is so absurd it is lunacy, but some loon-birds will think it is true.

I am sorry Bill, but your posts have (again) gone too far. You have been doing this for years, but your mis-informed opinions are not fact. You just spray out whatever you think supports your unknowledgeable and uninformed thoughts. It is like we are back 4 years ago.

 

[easyrider]

Maybe you should RTFM before you spout your stuff. READ the entire post.

I'm totally lost on what you are trying to say. What I want you to know is calling people you disagree with names instead of providing a counter statement is kind of lame, imo.

Bill

 

[easyrider]

Homeowner insurance doesn't cover negligence? What on earth are you talking about? First you falsely claim HO insurance doesn't cover EV battery fires, now you claim it doesn't cover negligence? This is so absurd it is lunacy, but some loon-birds will think it is true.

I am sorry Bill, but your posts have (again) gone too far. You have been doing this for years, but your mis-informed opinions are not fact. You just spray out whatever you think supports your unknowledgeable and uninformed thoughts. It is like we are back 4 years ago.

Doesn't necessarily is not the same as doesn't. Might not cover isn't the same as doesn't cover. If the EV starts on fire the home owners insurance is the same policy as the auto insurance. The auto insurance would pay., not necessarily the home owners insurance.

Bill

 

[davidvel]

Doesn't necessarily is not the same as doesn't. Might not cover isn't the same as doesn't cover. If the EV starts on fire the home owners insurance is the same policy as the auto insurance. The auto insurance would pay., not necessarily the home owners insurance.

Bill

You are just rambling now. Obviously (to the initiated), no HO policy covers an auto. Home and auto policies are separate even if through the same company. But the HO policy would cover damage to the home. There may be coverage on the auto policy depending on who owns the home and car, and determination of liability. But none of this is relevant to your claims, as it is not what you said:

I have read that EV battery fire isn't covered under many home owner or auto insurance policies. This would be a concern for me.

Bill

I have never seen an exclusion in an HO and/or auto policy that excludes damage from a fire caused by an EV battery. You claimed this is the case with many such policies, with zero support. This is simply false.

Homeowners insurance doesn't necessarily cover negligence. It can be considered negligence when you park a recalled for battery fire EV in your garage and it starts a fire.

Bill

You also claimed that HO policies don't cover "negligence." This is also false.

 

[davidvel]

I was referring to your Cevey Bolt EV reference. Check MY quote.

Don't misquote me,troll

I don't see Bill as a troll. A troll is just there to make people mad. An internet troll is someone who intentionally posts or comments online to upset others. Trolls may use inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive messages to start arguments, disrupt conversations, and post knowingly false information just to trigger others.

I do not consider Bill to be an actual troll, because I think he actually believes the wild theories and false claims that he posts, much like many conspiracy theorists. In a way, this is much sadder than a genuine troll.

 

[DrQ]

I don't see Bill as a troll. A troll is just there to make people mad. An internet troll is someone who intentionally posts or comments online to upset others. Trolls may use inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive messages to start arguments, disrupt conversations, and post knowingly false information just to trigger others.

I do not consider Bill to be an actual troll, because I think he actually believes the wild theories and false claims that he posts, much like many conspiracy theorists. In a way, this is much sadder than a genuine troll.

Nah, Bill is going to be happy driving his 25 year old car. He is just getting his jollies just winding us up. I'm out of responding to him on this subject.

 

[Brett]

I don't see Bill as a troll. A troll is just there to make people mad. An internet troll is someone who intentionally posts or comments online to upset others. Trolls may use inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive messages to start arguments, disrupt conversations, and post knowingly false information just to trigger others.

I do not consider Bill to be an actual troll, because I think he actually believes the wild theories and false claims that he posts, much like many conspiracy theorists. In a way, this is much sadder than a genuine troll.

yeah, I suppose it's just like it was in the Covid forum ... "sadder than a genuine troll"

The future of four wheels is all electric​

https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/the-future-of-four-wheels-is-all-electric

 

[easyrider]

You are just rambling now. Obviously (to the initiated), no HO policy covers an auto. Home and auto policies are separate even if through the same company. But the HO policy would cover damage to the home. There may be coverage on the auto policy depending on who owns the home and car, and determination of liability. But none of this is relevant to your claims, as it is not what you said:


I have never seen an exclusion in an HO and/or auto policy that excludes damage from a fire caused by an EV battery. You claimed this is the case with many such policies, with zero support. This is simply false.

You also claimed that HO policies don't cover "negligence." This is also false.

Dave, I did read this on reddit. A guy says their ev caught on fire which destroyed their house and the insurance companies hadn't paid. Most insurance policies have exclusions for wear , tear and neglecting maintance in both auto and home owners insurance. So yes, neglagence can disqualify a claim.

Most insurance policy have a exclusions for purposeful reckless actions. An example would be convicted of burning your house to collect insurance.


By the way, you seem to be getting a little personal. Why ? So is Dr Q and Brett. Why ? If you don't agree with any of my posts just say So.

This thread is called you are being lied to about electric cars, not the mess with Bill thread.

Bill

 

[davidvel]

By the way, you seem to be getting a little personal. Why ? So is Dr Q and Brett. Why ? If you don't agree with any of my posts just say So.

This thread is called you are being lied to about electric cars, not the mess with Bill thread.

Bill

There is nothing personal. This is not about you, but about the things you post. For some reason, you continue to post things that are false as if they are facts, when they are your uninformed opinion. You continue to do it now as noted below. I have an extensive background in insurance coverage litigation and interpretation, so yes this raises my hackles a bit. Regardless of the title of the thread, you posted false information to support your anti-EV beliefs.

Dave, I did read this on reddit. A guy says their ev caught on fire which destroyed their house and the insurance companies hadn't paid. Most insurance policies have exclusions for wear , tear and neglecting maintance in both auto and home owners insurance. So yes, neglagence can disqualify a claim.

No one, and especially me, cares that someone on reddit posted something. reddit is not an authority, but just people posting things, accurate or not, just like here. Who knows if they didn't pay, or why they didn't pay if they did not. (If you would like to cite to the reddit thread[doubtful], I am happy to look at it and show how the claim is false, if it in fact says what you think it does.)

Wear and tear relates to fair market value. Depending on the policy, such depreciation is covered or not. It is not universal. It has nothing to do with whether the policy covers damage resulting from an EV battery fire.

I have never read an insurance policy (and I have read multi-hundreds), either commercial, personal, auto or home that excludes coverage as a result of lack of maintenance. People post this all the time, and it is simply not true. There is no exclusion that disqualifies a claim for negligence. I am sorry, but your statements are patently false.

Most insurance policy have a exclusions for purposeful reckless actions. An example would be convicted of burning your house to collect insurance.

This is actually true. Almost all, if not all, insurance policies have an exclusion for intentionel acts of the insured. In California this is codified in Insurance Code section 533. Notably this section expressly states that "An insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the wilful act of the insured; but he is not exonerated by the negligence of the insured, or of the insured's agents or others."

So, if an insured intentionally parks their recalled vehicle in their garage with the belief and intent that the car will catch fire and burn the house down, the exclusion will apply. If they are merely negligent in doing so, coverage will apply.

 

[easyrider]

There is nothing personal. This is not about you, but about the things you post. For some reason, you continue to post things that are false as if they are facts, when they are your uninformed opinion. You continue to do it now as noted below. I have an extensive background in insurance coverage litigation and interpretation, so yes this raises my hackles a bit. Regardless of the title of the thread, you posted false information to support your anti-EV beliefs.

No one, and especially me, cares that someone on reddit posted something. reddit is not an authority, but just people posting things, accurate or not, just like here. Who knows if they didn't pay, or why they didn't pay if they did not. (If you would like to cite to the reddit thread[doubtful], I am happy to look at it and show how the claim is false, if it in fact says what you think it does.)

Wear and tear relates to fair market value. Depending on the policy, such depreciation is covered or not. It is not universal. It has nothing to do with whether the policy covers damage resulting from an EV battery fire.

I have never read an insurance policy (and I have read multi-hundreds), either commercial, personal, auto or home that excludes coverage as a result of lack of maintenance. People post this all the time, and it is simply not true. There is no exclusion that disqualifies a claim for negligence. I am sorry, but your statements are patently false.

This is actually true. Almost all, if not all, insurance policies have an exclusion for intentionel acts of the insured. In California this is codified in Insurance Code section 533. Notably this section expressly states that "An insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the wilful act of the insured; but he is not exonerated by the negligence of the insured, or of the insured's agents or others."

So, if an insured intentionally parks their recalled vehicle in their garage with the belief and intent that the car will catch fire and burn the house down, the exclusion will apply. If they are merely negligent in doing so, coverage will apply.

So if GM issues a recall for the Chevy Bolt and notifies owners with specific instructions to park 50 ft away from other cars and buildings , then the owner ignores this warning and parks in the garage and the car battery ignites burning the dwelling , this wouldn't disqualify a claim ?

Bill

 

[easyrider]

Here is one of the big reasons why many people will not own an ev, imo. It would be disingenuous to think this isn't an issue.

Bill

 

[davidvel]

So if GM issues a recall for the Chevy Bolt and notifies owners with specific instructions to park 50 ft away from other cars and buildings , then the owner ignores this warning and parks in the garage and the car battery ignites burning the dwelling , this wouldn't disqualify a claim ?

Bill

Correct. Now you are catching on. Unless they intentionally park their recalled vehicle in their garage with the belief it will catch fire and do so with intent that the car will catch fire and burn the house down, the exclusion will not apply. You are "practically" an insurance coverage lawyer now. (not.) And "disqualify" is not a insurance coverage term, which sort of outs you.

Note: the purpose of my comments is to inform people other than you, who may care about the topics at hand. EVs fires are not excluded from auto or home coverage despite what Bill may post.

 

[TUGBrian]

safe to say if your only source of information is a single post on reddit....thats not a terribly strong argument.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Ok. Eventually they might figure it out but as of now some ev's do start fires. All Sonos ev's had to be destroyed because they couldn't find the problem with their EV. Many ev's including BMW, Hyundai, Chysler and Chevy have had recalls on the ev's because of battery fires. Chevy went as far as to tell Bolt owners to park 50ft away from combustibles before the recall repairs.

You can call it fud but it's a deserved fud as of now, imo.

Bill

I refer to FUD with regard to the constant posting about how BEVs seemingly catch fire more frequently than ICE vehicles - which is patently untrue and inaccurate - yet it’s constantly brought up as a reason to avoid BEVs - when the simple fact is that the real world stats show that BEVs are 25 times less likely to catch fire. As someone else already pointed out - whether it’s a BEV or an ICE vehicle that catches fire in a home garage - the home is going to burn down either way.

With regard to non-Tesla manufacturers having issues with fires, this problem primarily comes down to the BMS - not the pack itself - though there are also cases where battery pack manufacturing quality comes into play. Tesla uses 18650 and 2170 battery packs from LG, Panasonic, Samsung, and their own 4680 battery packs. Yet Tesla has much lower fire rates than any other BEV manufacturers (some that use the exact same packs in fact) by orders of magnitude. Close to 50 times less likely as opposed to 25 times less likely than a ICE vehicle to catch fire. Tesla doesn’t advertise this, because Tesla doesn’t really advertise much at all really. This is why I’d never buy a BEV from a non-Tesla manufacturer at this time. I’m certain this will change as the other manufacturers become better at BMS programming, but it’s not the case today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk