Slashdot Mirror
GM, NHTSA Delayed Volt Warnings To Prop Up Sales
Lauren Weinstein excerpts the most interesting part of a BBC story about the safety hazards associated with the Chevy Volt — specifically, the risk that its battery pack could catch fire after even a minor impact. While it might be unsurprising that GM was reluctant to shout out safety warnings that would dampen early sales of its much touted hybrid, according to the linked story the NHTSA was as well, and for the same reason: "Part of the reason for delaying the disclosure was the 'fragility of Volt sales' up until that point, according to Joan Claybrook, a former administrator at NHTSA."
Can't have the Government criticizing a Government Motors product now, can we? Especially if it's GREEN!
This is getting blown way out of proportion.
See this article for another view: http://www.economist.com/node/21541395
Specifically the last paragraph:
"What is left unsaid in all this is the fact that conventional cars with a tank full of petrol are far greater fire hazards than electric cars will ever be. Some 185,000 vehicles catch fire in America each year, with no fewer than 285 people dying as a consequence. But, then, people have been living with the hazard of petrol for over a century. Irrationally, electric-vehicle fires are perceived as somehow more worrisome simply because they are new."
Oh I know. Just like I know that nuclear power is actually relatively safe. But the fact is that electric cars (more specifically giant lithium batteries) are a technology that people are antsy about, and now there's been an accident (fully preventable if they followed the instructions of course), and a cover up. What do you think's going to happen?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Compare this to the infernal fireball that you get seconds after you puncture a gas tank.
Dude, you should watch less action movies.
Hint: in the real world, gasoline cars rarely explode when you fire a pistol at them.
And on the other hand the same NHTSA was all too happy to jump all over Toyota when some morons could not remember which pedal is for braking.
RIP once more, electric car. Dig you up in 20 years once the fallout of this conspiracy washes away. :-(
Conspiracy? Please. Try reality.
There's no conspiracy here against electric cars. Compared to gas powered vehicles, they suck. It really is as simple as that. The technology for electric cars just isn't there yet, no matter how hard you wish it. It wasn't a conspiracy that the EV1 failed, and it's not a conspiracy that newer electric cars still stink. There is no laughing fat man in an expensive suit, lighting cigars with $100 dollar bills that's preventing electric cars from taking off. Call the rest of us back when someone makes an electric car that can go as far as a gas car, as fast as a gas car, and has passenger room and a sticker price and operating costs comparable to gas cars. When that happens, people will buy them, and companies will be in one quick hurry to sell them.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
to me it isn't so much as because it's "new" but rather because it is delayed.. in a normal car wreck if you have a fire it happens then.. not 3 weeks after the car was repaired.
I'd agree there is zero worry if it takes a puncture of the battery pack to cause this as that should be caught in inspection before it is sent out as repaired. what does bother me is the chance of it happening with the battery pack only experiencing a physical shock with zero outside indicators of damage. I want to know the real % chances of that happening.. if it is 50% then we have a problem.. my bet though is this isn't really an issue..
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
This is why nuclear is a bad option. It's ridiculously expensive because of the risks, massive redundancy needed and of course spent fuel storage for centuries. It will be necessary for another 50-100 years unfortunately but we'll get off it as renewable sources and battery tech gets better. They simply don't have the risks that nuclear will always have.
You mean like hydroelectric? (171,000 people dead from one accident, if you didn't click the link. I believe that is at least one order of magnitude more than have died, in totum, from nuclear accidents.) Other hydroelectric dams could kill at least that many again if they fail. Hydro failures are generally even more catastrophic than even the worst nuclear disasters have ever been. They also produce far more power than other renewable sources.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
There are two things to note about this story. First, it's reported in the BBC. That's a very good sign that it actually happened as the BBC story said it happened. Second, there's huge incentives for the Obama administration to play softball on this issue, namely, that General Motors is a favored company due to its bailout status and because electric vehicles are a pet project as well.
However you spin this "crackpot theory", it remains that the Obama administration has a peculiar list of priorities which often show up in ugly ways.
Nailed it. Replacing our entire infrastructure to generate, store, and transport hydrogen is the trick. So is the question of our source of hydrogen - it could still be oil based for a while. Our catalysts for splitting water aren't quite ready for industrial scale yet IMHO. Best plan I've seen so far is to dedicate a nuclear reactor to the provision of electricity for a catalyst assisted electrolytic splitting of water. I suppose you could do the same with a dam, but I bet it'd be easier to build a new nuke plant these days than it would to build a major dam.
Emergency responders have been trained with regards to where the high voltage cables run from the battery pack to the motor (or motors, as is the case with the Toyota hybrid systems). The cables are bright orange, and are automatically disconnected from the high voltage battery pack by physical contactors upon a sufficient impact.
http://barryfeinstein.com/InTheNews/2011/11/12/avoiding-electrocution-dedham-firefighters-learn-hybrid-ropes/
to me it isn't so much as because it's "new" but rather because it is delayed.. in a normal car wreck if you have a fire it happens then.. not 3 weeks after the car was repaired.
Right, I'd much rather have the fire break out while I'm trapped unconscious and injured in my vehicle immediately following an accident.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
It gets even stranger: more people have died from solar energy accidents (mostly, falling off roofs while installing panels), than have died from nuclear accidents. Of course, ordinary facts can never overcome irrational fears...
For those who don't want to click on the link, the most dangerous (by far) is coal (including deaths due to pollution). Nuclear is the safest. The stats are based on deaths/TWh, and the authors gives lots of references.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
My primary car is an electric car, the Nissan LEAF. The price is comparable to other cars and the ride quality and low noise while driving is better than just about all vehicles out there except luxury vehicles. Fuel costs are half the price of the most efficient gas car on the market, the Toyota Prius at about $0.04 / mile compared to $0.09 / mile. Compared to your typical gas car fuel costs are 1/4 to 1/3rd the cost.
Top speed is over 90 mph, more than fast enough for any public highway and seats up to 5 passengers comfortably. Instant torque when you press the accelerator can't be beat by any internal combustion engine.
The only drawback is somewhat limited range and long recharge times, but after 6 months of ownership it's only prevented me from using the LEAF once - but with a DC quick charge station in some strategic locations it wouldn't have been an issue.
Electric cars are here now - Nissan has sold over 20,000 LEAFs so far this year - the best selling EV in the world - and they still don't offer it in all 50 states here in the US.
Will the current crop of EVs work for all people? No - and I certainly wouldn't recommend the LEAF for those that don't. There are plenty of hybrids out there that get great fuel economy and the plug-in hybrid Volt is a great way to minimize your gasoline consumption if you suffer from range anxiety.
Call the rest of us back when someone makes an electric car that can go as far as a gas car, as fast as a gas car, and has passenger room and a sticker price and operating costs comparable to gas cars. When that happens, people will buy them, and companies will be in one quick hurry to sell them.
Really? You want a new technology to match or beat EVERYTHING of the old tech right now, including the price? If everyone had your attitude, we'd still be using CRT TVs. The first plasma displays were ridiculously expensive and performed worse than CRTs (worse contrast ratios).
But over time as people began to adopt them, R&D and economies of scale improved so that their performance as well as price improved. Its an iterative process fueled by the gradual increasing support of the new technology. Electric cars cannot match ICE cars now at every metric. No new tech can, cars or otherwise.
But electric cars could easily have a place in society. Most daily driving IS short distance runs. Even most commutes are under 50 miles one way. And many households have more than 1 car. Its conceivable to own 1 electric car for the daily short runs and keep the gasoline car for the occasional long distance hauls. I think as a whole, gas consumption would be reduced significantly. I know for my situation, it would be reduced 95% at a huge cost savings.
Except I don't think it's true.
"Part of the reason for delaying the disclosure was the "fragility of Volt sales" up until that point, according to Joan Claybrook, a former administrator at NHTSA.
"NHTSA could have put out a consumer alert," he said, according to industry website"
A) Joan Claybrook hasn't been with NHTSA since 81
B) That blurb really makes no sense where it is in the article. It looks like it was added later. Sloppy writing, to say the least
C) The got her gender wrong. Again sloppy. Maybe a typo.
D) The writer makes everything alarmist, and intentional uses alarmist phrasing.
Conclusion: I can't really trust the author or this article.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Be a bit more discriminating in your criticisms. Electric drive is awesome. It's way, way better than ICE. No gears, no hunting around for sweet spots in the RPM/torque characteristics, smoother power, far quieter, instantly starts, much more durable, simpler, cheaper, smaller, lighter, needs much less maintenance, and no smelly, polluting, unhealthy exhaust from a tailpipe. Railroads have been using diesel electric engines for decades, for many of those reasons. Having personally used an electric mower (plugin, no battery), I don't want to go back to the combustion engine mower. The advantages are so worth the big disadvantage of being tied to an extension cord. I've worked out ways to cope with that; it's not that bad.
The batteries are the problem with it all. The gas tank is by far the simpler, cheaper, faster, and more durable energy storage method. If we ever get batteries or fuel cells sorted out, the combustion engine will very quickly become a quaint relic of the past.
Or perhaps we could figure a way to electrify our roads. Works for subways.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"