Chevy Volt Fire Prompts Safety Investigation For EV Batteries 225
Three weeks after undergoing a crash test, a Chevy Volt caught fire. The car's battery was determined as the cause of the fire, though GM said its protocols for deactivating the battery following a crash would have prevented it. Either way, the National Highway Traffic Safety Association is now on the case. They're planning additional testing of the batteries, though they were quick to say, "Based on the available data, N.H.T.S.A. does not believe the Volt or other electric vehicles are at a greater risk of fire than gasoline-powered vehicles. In fact, all vehicles — both electric and gasoline-powered — have some risk of fire in the event of a serious crash." According to the president of an engineering firm, "If a lithium battery is pierced by steel, a chemical reaction will take place that starts raising the temperature and can result in a fire... If the piercing is small, that reaction can take days or weeks to occur."
volt cells (Score:5, Interesting)
I was always skeptical... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was always skeptical of the Chevy Volt, not because of its technology per se, but because of the "executor". In this case, engineers at Chevy.
After living in a household that owned Chevys for decades, and seeing how poor workmanship was an almost guaranteed feature in all those vehicles, the Chevy left a bad mark on my mind.
Even simple stuff like seats were poorly done. The cars over heated in the summer, and many of them would just lose power when you needed it most.
Needless to say, I do not think I will ever own one even if given to me as a gift.
Re:Green == Danger (Score:4, Interesting)
* My brothers '72 Capri caught fire in the garage and nearly burned our house down.
* Windmills only kill condors left, but not right.
* Radar ground clutter is well known.
* Using heater uses energy of course. Can't blame Obama for laws of physics being inconvenient sometimes.
* I tend to agree with you on the silliness of ethanol.
Private market is no paragon of virtue. Recall AIG?, Enron? BP oil spill? Bhopal chemical leak? etc. etc.?
Re:Why have Americans become nancies? (Score:5, Interesting)
For example. They are ignorant of the large number of people driving without licenses, in unregistered, uninsured, and un-inspected vehicles. I am not claiming that this phenomenon is limited to the USA, I am instead pointing out that the tolerance for risk has NOT decreased at the rate it is apparently assumed. That's in just one small way as well. Then there are the many permutations based on that scenario.... unlicensed driver in a friend's car, licensed driver in an uninsured car, etc. Then there are the drunk drivers... sometimes, there are drunk Cops on the road. There are those that are high that shouldn't be driving. So with the vast number of cars that should not be on the road for one reason or another in the USA, you take your life into your hands every time you get on the road. Again... not saying that we are unique in this aspect... just pointing out we are no different.
How long has the Chevy Volt been out on the market? Oh wait... it's less than a year old. It's still only being sold in limited markets. It's not even overseas in most markets. They just had a TEST VEHICLE catch fire WEEKS after it was in an accident. I'm sorry.... this kind of thing is COMMON outside of the USA? Sure, investigators say they cannot repeat the incident. Sure, it's not the American people who are all upset by this but instead it is GM (the manufacturer) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Let's recap then. The Manufacturer is slightly concerned, but points out it's no more dangerous than any other car. The Administration set up by the United States Government (and anyone who thinks that the United States Government does what the people of the USA want is ignorant) to monitor Highway traffic and safety wants to avoid putting cars on the road that might spontaneously burst into flames a few weeks after they were in an accident and repaired... because THEY know that Americans will easily accept the risk of reusing a potentially damaged battery, rather than play it safe and replace it. Wait... did you catch that? There is an important example of how Americans assume risk every day. Something gets damaged, and where others would replace it to be safe, Americans are generally willing and ready to continue to use the damaged product. Doesn't matter if it is a hammer, table saw, damaged gas tank in a car... whatever.
You say change the batteries after a collision. You are a hypocrite. You make a statement like that, and try to pass it off as common sense so people won't see it for what it is... playing it safe. The whole reason why the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is concerned is BECAUSE a majority of Americans are more likely to ASSUME THE RISK of continuing to use the battery after a collision. You think this makes the American citizens "nancies"? I say your attitude of being afraid the battery would explode and therefore should require replacement shows fear. Your attitude shows you are unwilling to take Risk.
Oh, and just so it is clear... of course there is a difference between taking a risk and being foolhardy.
Re:I was always skeptical... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd drop Ford from that list for most car models. They really turned around their quality in a way that I just can't believe. They feel and drive like a luxury car and my family mechanic says he never sees them except for scheduled maintenance (or something caused by no scheduled maintenance... change your oil people!).
Japan has its share of trash manufacturers on the order of crappiness similar to Chrysler. Mitsubishi and Suzuki are not something you would really want to buy if you are concerned about reliability, and Nissan is questionable.
battery technology (Score:2, Interesting)
after 150 years, the design of the lead-acid cell has not really been improved on. rainer partenan's nanotech aluminium-based battery which has (had) a 5x storage capacity improvement for its weight over NiMh was thoroughly discredited. research grants 15 years ago by the U.S. Govt were *only* given for batteries with a voltage over 2.0 volts, in order, one can only assume, to prevent and prohibit the funding and discovery of aluminium-based battery technology.
we therefore have to work with what we've got: it's no good saying "oh we have to wait yet _another_ decade or two until someone comes up with the goods" FUCK that, there are more ways than one to skin a cat, ok?
so the alternatives are to skin the vehicle down to an absolute minimum required, then make it *look* from the outside (for social acceptance as well as driving safety reasons) like it's a "full-on square back-sided car" jobbie. in other words, you stuff a massively-streamlined body inside an empty outer shell. this is the principle behind what i'm working on - http://lkcl.net/ev [lkcl.net]
it's _not_ all about the batteries. we _have_ all the pieces of the puzzle already - have done for over 5 years now. it's just that nobody's put them all together... yet.
Re:Why have Americans become nancies? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the part that raised eyebrows is that the fire happened in a car that had been sitting for 3 weeks after a crash test. You don't see that sort of thing with gas or diesel cars, so it is worth noting.
It's also worth testing to determine just how much of an accident it takes to cause this. Are we talking back into a pole in the parking lot and three weeks later it burns your house down or is it just in the sort of accidents where you won't be driving it afterward anyway?
Re:Why have Americans become nancies? (Score:4, Interesting)
You make some good points, but until relatively recently the depreciation of EV batteries, calculated on a per mile/annual basis exceeded the cost of the electricity used to charge it. IE You spend 5 cents worth of electricity to go a mile, but the battery 'wore down' 10 cents. Meanwhile I wouldn't be surprised if a standard 10 gallon tank used in many small cars cost around $20 for auto manufacturers. Then add $40 of gasoline, total value $60. EV batteries are in the thousands, to the point that the electricity used to charge them is a marginal thing.
I wouldn't wan an EV pack in my bedroom either - they're huge. While I might be able to pick up a full 10 gallon tank, assuming it has good handholds, there's no way I'm going to be able to pick up even the smaller leaf batteries.
As for cost, well, they're about the same at the moment - extra expense up front, cheaper per mile. Or less expense, more expensive per mile.
Re:let's forbid EV Batteries (Score:5, Interesting)
That arguement falls down for two reasons.
a) if something like this didn't exist our world would likely be as it was during the time it was invented, and we would likely have thought "What is the point of that? I have a horse!"
b) You're ignoring my point that we have become an insanely litigious society. It's not a necessity that will or won't allow us to move forward, its the fear of getting sued the first time something like this causes a death.
The only thing that saves the car is entrenchment. Take a look at typical industry today while you're at it. Why is it today we say nuclear power is too expensive whereas in the 60s it was seen as a way to finally make cheap power? Our society has changed for the risk averse where these days people are much more concerned about building an intellectual property portfolio than build equipment.