Chevy Volt Fire Prompts Safety Investigation For EV Batteries
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."
Do you want to know why the American economy is swirling down the shitter? It's became Americans have become nancies. They have become sissies, if you will. They don't have the guts to take real risks. They don't have the guts to try something new.
Maybe this shouldn't be surprising. America often has been a backward "conservative" nation for much of its history. Aside from a few generations at the very beginning of America's modern history, the tolerance for risk has been decreasing rapidly. Without real risk you can't have real gain.
This story is a perfect example. This is clearly a very minor issue with a simple solution: if the vehicle gets into a collision, change the fucking batteries! But America as a culture will overlook this, and will overlook the immense economic and environmental benefits that these vehicles would bring, because they are TOO FUCKING SCARED to take what's a very minor risk.
This happened with an old laptop battery I had which was pierced after a fall and left in a metal trash bin. Nothing serious resulted but people need to be aware that damaged batteries are always dangerous. The fact it happened ona volt seems irrelevant. Maybe they can release a new car and call it "duravolt" (like duracell batteries except with a volt tag).
How long before we see a TV show or mystery novelist use an intentional puncturing of a battery to kill someone weeks later?
I give it two years, any other guesses?
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
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.
4 weeks later and entire tank of poisonous and flammable hydrocarbons could leak from a damaged car onto a garage floor or into a drain.
ICE cars are no angels: we've just gotten used to their failure modes.
Rgds
Damon
http://m.earth.org.uk/
* 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.?
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Are you claiming that there are no dangerous slow failure modes to conventional cars that an unaware driver could be hurt by, like balding tires, or brake fluid leakage or corroding wiring or whatever? Familiarity doesn't make them OK, and EV drivers will learn to look out for new failure modes if they prove common or dangerous.
So, before accusing *me* of being full of fail, maybe try (a) thinking carefully about my underlying point beyond your OMG!!!11!-status-quo-is-the-only-thing-that-could-possibly-work thinking, and (b) stop posting as AC.
Rgds
Damon
http://m.earth.org.uk/
My cousin's ex-eyebrows are interested in your views on the safety of gasoline and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Rgds
Damon
http://m.earth.org.uk/
And here they are, from the 2-hour training session for first responders to Chevy Volt accidents. It's necessary to open the trunk and cut 12V cables at two points with heavy wire cutters. The cut points are marked with yellow tape printed with a firefighter hat and wire cutters. Here is GM's official instruction sheet for this. There's also a battery disconnect switch inside the center console of the vehicle, where a big plug is turned and removed. That's the normal procedure for disconnecting power during service.
So that's the documented "protocol following the crash". That's what GM says to do, and what a first responder or a tow company would have done if they did everything right. It would have had little effect if a battery had an internal short.
The Prius, Civic, and Ford Escape each have completely different battery disconnection procedures. The first responder community is not happy about this. They want a standardized, easy to get at way to quickly disconnect the high voltage battery in an emergency.
Lets face it if you rode up to the regulators today on your horse and said: "I have a new idea for a product. It will be a giant metal shell on wheels. People will sit in it and move at 60km/h in opposite directions on a narrow road only a meter appart. The metal shell will become the subject of about half of your efforts to control how people use it. Best of all it runs on a highly volatile mixture of hydrocarbons."
There's no way a car could be invented today.
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.