The National Transportation Safety Board says California firefighters had to douse a flaming battery in a Tesla Semi with about 50,000 gallons of water to put out flames after a crash.

California firefighters had to douse a flaming battery in a Tesla Semi with about 50,000 gallons (190,000 liters) of water to extinguish flames after a crash, the National Transportation Safety Board said Thursday.

In addition to the huge amount of water, firefighters used an aircraft to drop fire retardant on the “immediate area” of the electric truck as a precautionary measure, the agency said in a preliminary report.

Firefighters said previously that the battery reached temperatures of 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit (540 Celsius) while it was in flames.

The NTSB sent investigators to the Aug. 19 crash along Interstate 80 near Emigrant Gap, about 70 miles (113 kilometers) northeast of Sacramento. The agency said it would look into fire risks posed by the truck’s large lithium-ion battery.

  • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
    725·
    2 个月前

    There are a lot of reasons WHY news agencies disproportunatly show the downsides of green energy

    Electric cars are not “green energy” - that’s utter bullshit.

    1. the energy consumption of electric cars is about as clean as the power plant that produced said energy - if that happens to be a fossil fuel plant, it’s dirty as fuck, just with the pollution in a different location from where the car is driving If you have renewable energy, then yes, they can be cleaner, but:

    2. we don’t have enough (mineable) rare earths to replace even a sizeable fraction of the world’s car market with electric vehicles

    • reddig33@lemmy.world
      21·
      2 个月前
      1. A great deal of electricity is produced by renewables these days, and that percentage increases every day.

      https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48896

      https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20240221-1

      1. There’s plenty of lithium. Lithium batteries are also recyclable, unlike fossil fuels.

      https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/lithium-electric-vehicles

      1. Sodium ion batteries are also a thing.
      • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
        1·
        2 个月前

        As I was saying in my first comment: If energy is produced by renewable sources, then they can be clean, so there’s no argument here.

        Re:

        https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/lithium-electric-vehicles

        1. the article focuses on lithium, which is not the only problematic material used in electric batteries
        2. the first source I checked (on total lithium in the world) was offline, so I could not confirm my suspicion that the author was talking about the total amounts including those inaccessible in the Earth’s mantle
        3. the author admits herself that we have “enough lithium for decades to come”, which is in-fucking-credibly stupid, because this planet has been around for billions of years, and one of the biggest flaws of mankind has been to empty a natural resource over a few decades “coz profits”. Creating a demand for a resource that would only make it last a few decades would create another clusterfuck like all the wars and blood shed over crude oil. As a matter of fact, for mining conditions, we already have this clusterfuck, if you look at e.g. how cobalt is mined in the “democratic” republic of Congo

        Finally, like I asked another commenter: could you provide a source on EV batteries made without rare earths?

        By the way - sodium requires salt, and that’s also limited on Earth. Knowing mankind, we’d extract locally (desalinification hurts the ecosystem there) and dump waste locally in another location (again, hurting the ecosystem).

        My overall point is: the world’s car market is just too big and we need to shrink it, but mankind as a whole is too fucking selfish and stupid and short-sighted to accomplish that, and I WISH time will prove me wrong on that.

        • oo1@lemmings.worldEnglish
          2·
          2 个月前

          People also dont get the differece between average and marginal. Adding consumption doesn’t build more wind farms. Adding extra electricity consumption means in short run burning more coal and gas. They are the ones that can be ramped up / ran more hours.

          In the long run they might build more nuclear, but that takes a (very) long time. Generally they’re building solar and wind pretty fast already, it is hard (costly) to ramp that up.

          Adding new sources of electricity consumption just keeps the fossil fuel power stations running for longer. Efficiiency is stuff like electric mass transit to replace as many car trips as possible - and using as much wires as possible instead of batteries. But no all the money will go into facilities and subsidy for battery powered cars.

          • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
            1·
            2 个月前

            Adding extra electricity consumption means in short run burning more coal and gas. They are the ones that can be ramped up / ran more hours.

            I think that’s only gas plants, that can react dynamically to changes in the grid?

            I think what we need is consumer electronics that can tolerate more variation in the grid power supply - e.g. a laundry machine that runs on 80% voltage just as well, but then takes a bit longer to finish.

            Nuclear power plants are only preferable to burning fossil fuels, and only when run by responsible entities (i.e. not by humans ;) - definitely not by profit-oriented corps) - I hope we can transition to enough wind, water & solar power, but we definitely need to cut down on energy consumption.

    • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
      13·
      2 个月前

      The dirtiest, least efficient coal power plant is still IMMENSELY more efficient than a car combustion engine. When you don’t have to make your energy generating device mobile, you can get a LOT more power from your fuel.

      Maybe spend some time learning about a subject before you make claims about it. There’s less chance of looking like an ignorant fool that way.

      Let me guess. You spend a lot of time in /c/fuckcars and therefore find ANY type of car bad and pointless?

      • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
        34·
        2 个月前

        First things first: Yours is a straw-man argument. I said that electric cars are not “green energy” because it matters how the energy is produced. You, however, argue for the better efficieny vs. combustion engines. I did not even MENTION combustion engines. So watch your tone, dumbass :p /s

        Regarding your straw-man, I’ll bite:

        Efficiency of an electric car is up to 65% including losses when charging. Efficiency of a Diesel powered car is up to 45%. Producing a liter of diesel costs about 1.13 times as much energy as is contained in a liter of Diesel fuel, which - even assuming 100% efficiency on winning that energy - is further bringing down the efficiency to 45% * (1 / 2.13 ) = 21% (one unit gained per 2.13 units invested). A coal power plant is at best reaching 45% energy efficiency, bringing the overall efficiency of an electric car down to 65% * 45% = 29.3%. That makes an electric car operating on coal generated electricity about 29.3% / 21% = 1.395 or about 40% more efficient than a Diesel powered car.

        And this does NOT include that electrical vehicles are - due to the weight of batteries - around 50% heavier than combustion engine cars, and that battery life is much shorter and then generates a lot of electronic waste.

        Accordingly:

        The dirtiest, least efficient coal power plant is still IMMENSELY more efficient than a car combustion engine

        Not true. Numbers for the most efficient coal power plants are just about equal with the efficiency of the best Diesel engines. But even moderate Diesel engines stay around 40% efficiency, whereas coal plants can be in the 30%-40% range easily.

        When you don’t have to make your energy generating device mobile, you can get a LOT more power from your fuel.

        1. generally, larger generator = better efficiency, yes, however:
        2. see above: this does not necessarily hold true when the batteries increase the total weight of your car by 50%

        While - all things considered (I honestly did not expect the production of Diesel to be quite so energy-inefficient) - electric cars fare better if driven at constant speed (or with good energy recuperation mechanisms on braking) and not taking into account the battery life, energy investment into that and chemical waste produced on production / disposal, they are far from getting “a LOT more power” from an “IMMENSELY more efficient” power plant.

        Maybe spend some time learning about a subject before you make claims about it. There’s less chance of looking like an ignorant fool that way.

        Likewise.

    • auzy@lemmy.world
      8·
      2 个月前

      Not this nonsense again. 60% of EV owners have solar panels for starters

      Secondly, they’re becoming increasingly less reliant on rare earth metals and all that can be recycled anyway

      Their battery can be used for v2g to assist solar and further transition

      Finally, they’re incredibly effectively compared to combustion.

      In comparison to combustion and hybrid, they’re way cleaner over the entire life

      And now with sodium batteries coming into the market, they’ll increasingly become so.

      Are they as clean as bikes? No

      But not everyone wants to be isolated within 5km of public transport and their home.

      I’d have to travel 2 hours by train to get to work, and wouldn’t be able to go mountaineering or hiking anymore

      Also, what’s with the nonsense about there aren’t enough mineral resources.

      EVs don’t need to use lithium batteries. The technology can evolve with any battery chemistry or power source.

      Whereas gas or hydrogen is limited to those two options permanently

      Hydrogen in particular has absolutely s*** efficiency in all parts of the process. It’s only clean if you ignore the high energy wastage

      • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
        12·
        2 个月前

        1. Solar panels need to run for a couple of years before they produce net energy considering the energy invested into production

        2. Source on battery production being less reliant on rare earths?

        3. Speak English, please - I am not looking up abbreviations to argue with you

        4. See my other reply here: https://lemmy.world/comment/12349903 Efficiency of an electrical car is better, but absolutely not “incredibly” better, as per the numbers I checked while writing that comment

        5. How much cleaner EVs are, depends on the source of energy mix (which at charging stations outside your home, you can hardly control) - if renewable energies are used, they are certainly cleaner. If fossil fuels are used, they are at best (not counting the waste from battery production and disposal) as much cleaner as the efficiency improvement (which is about 40% over Diesel engines, by what I calculated from sources that were acceptably credible for writing an internet comment as opposed to a scientific paper)

        6. I was not speaking about “mineral” resources, I was speaking about mineable rare earths. Because there are plenty in the Earth’s mantle, but we can’t get to those.

        7. Again, source please on how EVs do not need rare earths for batteries

        8. Agreed for the time being, but if research allows to improve the process for generation of hydrogen, it could be a cleaner combustion fuel

        In summary: I am not arguing for combustion cars, I am arguing against EVs not for individual use cases, but as a “this solves all problems with combustion engines” - because it is not a solution applicable to the world market for personal mobility.

        The best solution is a proper public transportation system - good bus connections and trains that can operate “by wire” without the need for batteries.