Electric driverless cars?

Ursus Minor

The Living Force
TESLA Spontaneously Combusts in LA Street

The Tesla Model S belonging to the husband of actress Mary McCormack spontaneously combusted in Los Angeles. In a late Friday tweet, the West Wing actress said that flames burst out of the undercarriage - most likely the car's battery compartment - while her husband was driving the car on Santa Monica boulevard in Los Angeles.


Stunning Video Shows Parked TESLA Spontaneously Explode In Chinese Garage


A self proclaimed Tesla owner in Shanghai that tweets under the name @ShanghaiJayIn posted this video on Twitter moments ago of what appears to be a Tesla Model S, 1st generation, catching fire spontaneously in a Chinese parking garage.

zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-21


On April 18, 2019 a Tesla vehicle near Pittsburgh caught fire and burned for hours on Wednesday night at an area service garage. The fire occurred despite Tesla engineers reportedly having access to the vehicle prior to moving it. The photos are stunning, showing what appears to be a vehicle that has been close to completely incinerated and reduced to a heap of smoldering wreckage.

fire%201.png



Zerohedge reports:

The same car had previously caught fire back in February in a garage around the same area, according to CBS 2 Pittsburgh. It was being towed to a new shop on Wednesday and "somehow" caught fire again, despite the fact that a Tesla engineer tried to reduce the risk of fire by removing the fuse from the battery pack prior to transporting the vehicle.

“We removed the car from the garage. A Tesla engineer removed the fuse from the battery pack prior to transport, indicating that would make the car safe for transport. We brought it here to Monroeville, arrived around 3:30 in the afternoon, and about 6:20, the car spontaneously caught fire,” forensic engineer David Bizzak said.

The car burned for about four hours before firefighters were able to get it under control.

Recall, back in December, we wrote an article about a brand new Model S that spontaneously combusted - twice. The car was not being worked on and was not involved in a collision when it caught fire in a tire shop parking lot near the Bay Area, according to NBC. After the fire department arrived and the Tesla was subsequently towed away, it then reignited a second time at a tow yard.

The owner of the tire shop said after the vehicle was brought in on a tow truck and they noticed a "hissing sound" coming from it before the vehicle went up in flames. The batteries in the vehicle continued to burn long after the flames were put out, the fire department concluded, and there was no indication that anyone was shooting at the batteries this time - so there goes that excuse.

 

JEEP

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Regarding the parked Tesla in the Chinese parking garage that spontaneously caught fire, the comments to this article are generally funny although one hits the nail on the head:

"Is safety a concern anymore? I keep seeing videos of self-driving cars causing accidents, and now this fire in an electric vehicle. Yet, these options keep being pushed as if we’re supposed to look the other way, as if we’re not supposed to believe what we’re seeing."

Watch this parked TESLA explode into flames… – CITIZEN FREE PRESS

In addition to that comment, what else isn't mentioned:

Electric Car-Owners Shocked: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars

The Brussel Times reports that a new German study exposes how electric vehicles will hardly decrease CO2 emissions in Europe over the coming years, as the introduction of electric vehicles won't lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions from highway traffic.

According to the study directed by Christoph Buchal of the University of Cologne, published by the Ifo Institute in Munich last week, electric vehicles have "significantly higher CO2 emissions than diesel cars." That is due to the significant amount of energy used in the mining and processing of lithium, cobalt, and manganese, which are critical raw materials for the production of electric car batteries.

A battery pack for a Tesla Model 3 pollutes the climate with 11 to 15 tonnes of CO2. Each battery pack has a lifespan of approximately ten years and total mileage of 94,000, would mean 73 to 98 grams of CO2 per kilometer (116 to 156 grams of CO2 per mile), Buchal said. Add to this the CO2 emissions of the electricity from powerplants that power such vehicles, and the actual Tesla emissions could be between 156 to 180 grams of CO2 per kilometer (249 and 289 grams of CO2 per mile).

German researchers criticized the fact that EU legislation classifies electric cars as zero-emission cars; they call it a deception because electric cars, like the Model 3, with all the factors, included, produce more emissions than diesel vehicles by Mercedes.

They further wrote that the EU target of 59 grams of CO2 per kilometer by 2030 is "technically unrealistic."

The reality is, in addition to the CO2 emissions generated in mining the raw materials for the production of electric vehicles, all EU countries generate significant CO2 emissions from charging the vehicles’ batteries using dirty power plants.

For true emission reductions, researchers concluded the study by saying methane-powered gasoline engines or hydrogen motors could cut CO2 emissions by a third and possibly eliminate the need for diesel motors.

"Methane technology is ideal for the transition from natural gas vehicles with conventional engines to engines that will one day run on methane from CO2-free energy sources. This being the case, the German federal government should treat all technologies equally and promote hydrogen and methane solutions as well."

So maybe Elon Musk's plan to save the world with electric cars is the biggest scam of our lifetime...

Electric Car-Owners Shocked: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars

Elon's having a bad week:
Crewed flight setback? Leaked video suggests SpaceX capsule is ANNIHILATED in safety test ‘anomaly’

With SpaceX and NASA still mute on details of what they dubbed an ‘anomaly’ during the latest Crew Dragon capsule safety test – a video has leaked online apparently showing a ‘rapid unscheduled disassembly’ event, aka a big boom.

A huge plume of smoke could be seen rising from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida on Saturday, after the Crew Dragon capsule being developed by SpaceX to ferry NASA astronauts to space reportedly exploded on the test stand. While the company confirmed suffering an “anomaly” during the test of the emergency response system’s abort engines, it has not shared any details about the accident.

“Our teams are investigating and working closely with our NASA partners,” the company stated, noting that “detecting anomalies like this prior to flight are the main reasons why we test.”

With SpaceX and NASA seemingly downplaying the incident, an unverified video leaked online on Sunday, showing the capsule blow up into pieces, to the gasps of the audience that was apparently reviewing and analyzing the ‘anomaly.’

The incident could potentially impact SpaceX’s already delayed timeline for launching a manned mission into space, since the system is crucial for the safety of future astronauts on board should something go wrong during a launch into orbit. Following the successful maiden unmanned flight in March, the company was hoping to test the capsule with pilots on board in July.

“The launch of the Dragon 2 spacecraft in July is out of the question. [It can take place] not earlier than the end of the year,” a source in the aerospace industry told Sputnik. “It is necessary to deal with the causes of the accident that took place during the tests. All this would take a long time.”

For the last eight years, NASA has been dependent on Russia to ferry its astronauts to the International Space Station, paying Roscosmos up to $81 million per seat. It hoped to finally end this reliance this spring, but with setbacks suffered by both SpaceX and Boeing with its CST-100 Starliner, it was forced to purchase at least two more Soyuz rides to guarantee US astronauts’ access to the station.

Crewed flight setback? Leaked video suggests SpaceX capsule is ANNIHILATED in safety test ‘anomaly’

The leaked vid can be viewed here:
SpaceX EXPLOSION: Watch SHOCKING leaked footage of the Crew Dragon capsule in FLAMES
 

seek10

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I heard lot of concerns with Tesla working conditions and financial market suspicions and uncertainties. May be it is expected given that it is a Trillion dollar industry. Being new to the cut-throat Industry, getting foot hold is a big thing.

Couple weeks back, I drove one of my friend to pickup his Tesla Model 3. The facility itself looked like a bare bone warehouse neatly coated white and color trims and with simple matched table. My friend booked it 2 years back. 20 min for the paper work, 20 min for demo and out in another 10 min. Literally no hint of pushing for any extra's except passing mention of speed charger for extra $500. The experience was so different, easy and positive.

First time I entered the car, First thought is 'WoW'. It looked like a sci-fi. Of course, mind will get used to it with in half an hour. Every thing they put it in display and cell phone app which may take little getting used to. For 38K, this looked to me like a revolutionary for a new company . What is interesting is , they have around 15 or 20 cars lined to be picked up on that day (at 6 PM). I can say based on the impressions of the people, every body was impressed.

One thing I didn't like is charging with regular power outlet. It charges 5 miles per hour. But, if one buys high speed charger ( $500) that needs separate High Amp connection ( additional $500 installation), I think it give 30 miles/hour. It may not be suitable for long travels, even if they have high speed charging facilities ( i.e waiting for a hour or more for charging instead of usual 2 minutes gas filling) . If power goes out, it will be piece of junk( along with most of the world I guess). Here is one video on the experiences, I heard from my friends.
 

c.a.

The Living Force
FOTCM Member

July 20, 2019 / 7:29 AM
SAN FRANCISCO —
Tesla claimed Randeep Hothi was a dangerous stalker who injured a security guard and endangered Tesla employees with his car. It asked a judge to slap Hothi with a restraining order.

But Tesla dropped the suit Friday after the judge ordered the company to turn over video and audio evidence to prove its case. The company said it chose not to release the evidence to protect the privacy of its employees.

In a letter to Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Brand, Tesla said the employees suffered “unwanted publicity and online harassment” and that “production of their private conversations to Mr. Hothi would, in Tesla’s view, inflict more damage by subjecting them to an unwarranted invasion of their privacy and further harassment.”

It was Tesla, in the lawsuit, that had revealed the employees’ names, not Hothi.

Hothi could not be reached for comment. He said outside the courtroom at an earlier hearing that Tesla was making up stories to smear him and shut him up. Video and audio evidence would clear him, he said. His attorney, Gill Sperlein, said he sent Tesla lawyers a letter Friday noting that his client plans to file a malicious prosecution suit against the company. The letter demands that Tesla retain all evidence.

“It’s clear that this case was intended from the beginning to intimidate Mr. Hothi,” Sperlein said. “He will not be intimidated. We will continue a dedicated search for the truth.”

Hothi is a member of an online community known as $TslaQ, which uses Twitter to trade information about the company, most of it negative. Most members are short sellers, who bet that a company’s stock price is overvalued and can make money when the stock price goes down.

A resident of Fremont and doctoral student at the University of Michigan, Hothi used cameras to monitor and document production levels at the Tesla automobile assembly plant there.

Tesla alleged that Hothi struck a security guard with his car in the factory’s parking lot last February, and two months later used his car to threaten and endanger three Tesla employees testing a Model 3’s Autopilot system on Interstate 880 between Fremont and Oakland. The employees, according to a court document filed by Tesla, feared that Hothi’s “road conduct would cause a collision and injure them."

Hothi said he hit no one with his car. Fremont police reviewed security video of the alleged event and filed no charges.

Hothi noted that the Model 3 car is fitted with eight cameras used to guide the Autopilot driver assist system. An additional camera is mounted on the back of the car to record Autopilot’s capabilities. He said the Tesla employees were taking pictures of him with their smartphones. The reason he was following the car, Hothi said, was to take videos and compare them with footage Tesla might show in its marketing videos to demonstrate whether they were edited accurately.

Sperlein, Hothi’s lawyer, asked Tesla to turn over video and audio recordings. Tesla said no. The judge was then asked to order Tesla to do so, which he did. Tesla agreed to turn over the material but asked the court to keep it secret. The judge said he would consider it, but noted that the company would need a compelling reason to hide the material, given that California trials are, by law, public. Tesla had also asked the judge to bar the media from the proceedings, a request the judge never responded to.

A Tesla spokesman said Friday: “Tesla believes it has given Mr. Hothi clear notice not to enter Tesla’s property, and Tesla will not hesitate to take legal action if he ever returns.”

1,090 Complaints
 

c.a.

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Last quarter, in a period of growing concerns about its business model and growing fears about flagging end-user demand for its products after the company reported dismal Q1 deliveries with just 12,100 combined model S and X deliveries the lowest total since 2015, Tesla CEO Elon Musk made investors wait, and wait, and then wait some more before releasing Q1 earnings at 5:13pm, roughly 1 hour after the customary release time (so that investors would have only 17 minutes to digest the report before rushing off to the conference call).

This time, with Tesla recently announcing that it delivered a record number of cars, or 95,200, in the second quarter, the odds for such a late report were virtually nil - especially with the stock rising 2% into earnings - but the big question was whether Tesla had aggressively front-loaded auto demand this quarter and whether it would reaffirm its prior guidance for delivering 360,000 to 400,000 cars in 2019, and alongside that, will Tesla maintain a ~20% gross margin. Perhaps even more important, what is the company's cash burn especially after it raised $2.7 billion in stock and debt in May even as it warned that it risked running out of cash without "hardcore" cost cuts.

And so, at 4:47 pm - well later than its usual time between 4:10 and 4:20pm, and a clear hint that not all is well - Tesla did report Q2 earnings, which while not quite as ugly as Q1 were close:

  • Revenue $6.35 billion, far worse than the estimate of $6.43 billion
  • Adjusted loss per share of $1.12, far worse than the estimated loss of 31c
  • Free cash flow $614 million, better than the estimate $235.5 million due to far lower CapEx
  • Adjusted automotive gross margin of 19%, better than the estimate +17.1%
  • Capital expenditure only $250MM, far below the estimate $583.9 million
ae4e5201a3e9568cda96100a9b3283ea.png

Speaking of the company's liquidity situation, TSLA's cash flow actually posted a dramatic rebound from the $920 million it burned in Q1, spiking to $614 million.
3535f2d1691f2a1191a657afd3a4b66e.png

... but the reason for this is that CapEx came in far below estimates, with Tesla only spending $250 million on capital expenditures, more than 50% below the $583 million expected. As a reminder, last quarter Tesla also surprise by spending far less on CapEx, when it reported Q1 capital expenditure of only $279.9 million, with consensus expecting nearly double that that or $508.2 million, suggesting the company once again mothballed various expansion projects to mitigate the cash burn.

And speaking of future Capex, and the company's growth prospects, perhaps the main reason why the company's stock is tumbling is because of the following item in the outlook: "Our 2019 capex is expected to be about $1.5 to $2.0 billion", a reduction by $500 million from prior guidance with the market clearly seeing this as a hint that growth - or rather spending on growth - is about to slow significantly, as Tesla is now far more focused on profitability and cash generation over growth. Instead, Tesla had record cash on hand which it will use for the Model 3 launch in China, and the Model Y, according to Bloomberg. As for Chinese production, this is what the company said about the Shanghai Gigafactory:

Gigafactory Shanghai will be almost fully funded through local debt. Thus far, we have secured a $510 million credit line from local banks, which should be largely sufficient for the first phase of the factory

The problem is that with such paltry capex, Tesla is hardly on a viable path: the letter notes that "Model S and Model X production continues to run on a single shift schedule, and we produced over 14,500 vehicles in Q2." Similar to the CapEx, that is also a rather deplorable number for both models combined.

Tesla also reported automotive gross margin of only 18.9%, down from 20.2% last quarter, down from 20.6% a year ago, and down from fourth quarter when it was 24.7% due to reductions in vehicle ASP and lower regulatory credit revenue.

The "good" news is that at least Tesla did not cut its production outlook yet, and said it is still on track to deliver between 360,000 and 400,000 vehicles this year.

Some more highlights from the company's outlook:

This quarter, we are simplifying our approach to guidance. We are most focused on expanding our manufacturing footprint in new regions, launching new products and continuing to improve the customer experience, while generating and using cash sustainably. Local production and improved utilization of existing factories is essential to be cost competitive in each region.
We remain on track to launch local production of the Model 3 in China by the end of the year and Model Y in Fremont by fall of 2020. We are also accelerating our European Gigafactory efforts and are hoping to finalize a location choice in the coming quarters.

As Bloomberg's Gabrielle Coppola notes, the "simplification" of guidance seems to mean that it's no longer telling investors what kind of profit margin it expects on the Model S, X, or 3, which it did last quarter.

What is more concerning is that Musk appears to be walking back what he said in Q1 about getting back into the black in Q3. It's aiming to make a profit:

We continue to aim for positive GAAP net income in Q3 and the following quarters, although continuous volume growth, capacity expansion and cash generation will remain the main focus.

Meanwhile, as some may recall, once upon a time Tesla was aggressively growing in solar, and was in fact the top name in the sector. Not anymore, because as Bloomberg notes, SolarCity at its height installed more than 200 megawatts in a quarter. Tesla did just 29 megawatts in 2Q, suggesting Tesla may no longer even be in the top 10 names in solar. And here's another sign that Tesla has all but given up on solar: in the 2Q investor, Musk letter devoted only 3 1/2 lines to energy. The Q1 letter had triple that, 10 1/2 lines - longer than the section on Autopilot in the Q1 letter.

Going back to the core automotive business, and looking at the all important demand number, Tesla's customer deposits plunged again, dropping to $631 million from $768 million in Q1, the lowest number since Q1 2017, suggesting that the backlog of potential clients is rapidly shrinking.
0c4881fd0b98fddb1842eaf90461cb88.png

And so between the major miss on the top and bottom line, the capex miss and cut, and Musk's , the market's patience with Tesla appears to have run out, and the stock is tumbling in the after hours.


 

Ursus Minor

The Living Force
"The Car That Almost Was" (The VW L 1)

Eric Peters on UnzReview

Electric cars are not really zero emission unless the electricity is provided by non-fossil fuel zero-emission power stations.
When they catch fire in an accident, you cannot extingish the fire, because the whole chemical stuff in the batteries keeps reacting.

This "Aptera" car also never made it to the production line:

 

bjorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
the market's patience with Tesla appears to have run out, and the stock is tumbling in the after hours.

The electric car (+ solar, wind) industry is heavily subsidised by mainly western governments. Which keeps them afloat and is part of reason why investors keep investing, despite heavy loses. The politics involved play a big factor, something many economic analysts fail to point out. OSIT.

If the economy sinks all of that will most likely be over.

But I think Elon will be fine, if he goes bankrupt he could escape to Mars ...

Thanks c.a. for the stats about Tesla, just catching up on this topic.
 

c.a.

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
The electric car (+ solar, wind) industry is heavily subsidised by mainly western governments. Which keeps them afloat and is part of reason why investors keep investing, despite heavy loses. The politics involved play a big factor, something many economic analysts fail to point out. OSIT

I'm under the impression that Elon (via Tesla), is front man for deep state asset's, and money laundering operations, (for all, and any kind).
He's shows sociopathic traits, is a habitual liar, and a bully. Time will tell.

Meanwhile from Germany:

 
Last edited:

c.a.

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
@TeslaCharts is one of the most well known Tesla skeptics on Twitter and in the $TSLAQ community. Today I speak to him about Walmart's recent lawsuit against Tesla and the entire SolarCity shitshow that has ensued since Tesla's acquisition of the company. The QTR Podcast is a completely, 100% listener supported podcast that is always going to be free.





Current Inside trading:
 
Last edited:

JEEP

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Saw this today:
J.D. Power Survey: “Consumers Terrified of Self-Driving Cars; Tesla and Rideshare Screwed”

car-4343633_1280-777x437.jpg


The J.D. Power survey about consumer fears was released in August. Since then, an Uber whistleblower revealed AVs are NOT safer than human drivers and that manufacturers are hiding the truth about this. And a AAA study determined that Semi-Autonomous Vehicles can’t see pedestrians and hit child-sized “Dummies” 89% of the time and adult-sized “dummies” 60% of the time DURING DAYLIGHT HOURS AND DRIVING AT LOW SPEEDS. That seems terrifying.

From J. D. Power:

The J.D. Power survey found that consumers trust auto-driving cars as much as they trust Skynet.

Survey and research powerhouse J.D. Power released the results of its Power Mobility Confidence Index, and the news was terrible for self-driving and electric vehicles. That, in turn, means bad news for Tesla, Uber, Lyft and other electric car manufacturers.

In short, the J.D. Power survey found that consumers trust auto-driving cars as much as they trust Skynet – the infamous AI network that destroys the human race in “The Terminator” film series.

JD Power’s survey is a confidence index, in which a score between zero and 40 indicates low confidence in whatever matter is being inquired about, a score of 41 to 60 means the public is neutral on the matter, and a score of 61 or higher indicates consumers are positive about the issue.

When it comes to self-driving vehicles as a whole, the J.D. Power confidence score was only 36. The two lowest scores amongst the J.D. Power survey questions were low confidence about the comfort of writing [riding] in a self-driving vehicle (which scored 34) and the comfort of being on the road with others in a self-driving vehicle (which scored 35).

When it came to safety, consumers were split 40 percent each on whether self-driving vehicles would improve traffic safety or make it worse. Age demographics didn’t matter too much on this count, with about 50 percent of both the younger and older generations in the J.D. Power survey thinking safety would be better (and therefore, 50 percent thought it would be worse).

Digging deeper into the safety category, consumers expressed a lot of worry about multiple aspects of auto-driving safety. Maybe Tesla’s auto-driving engineers got word of this survey and that’s why they bolted!

71 percent of consumers said they were the most worried about technology failures occurring. 57 percent were fearful of the vehicle they were driving being hacked, and 55 percent were concerned about liability should there be a collision.

The safety concerns are so widespread that 39 percent of consumers said they are not excited about any form of self-driving technology, and that includes public transit and delivery service.

A lack of enthusiasm over electric vehicles in the first place does not bode well for future sales. If 50 percent of the older generation, who has more disposable income and therefore more likely to buy a Tesla, distrust self-driving vehicles, that’s not going to help Tesla either.

This is also bad news for Uber and Lyft. both companies presently give up the vast majority of revenue to the drivers. As it is, price wars are forcing both companies to subsidize every ride.

Getting rid of drivers and replacing them with robots is still many years off, but based on JD Powers survey results, the use of rideshare will dramatically decline because people don’t trust Skynet – operated vehicles.

And why should they? The technology is nowhere close to being ready or accepted. Not to mention that insurance companies will have a hard time signing on.


On a related note – for many years insurance companies have also been refusing to cover telecom companies because their products are also too risky (see 1, 2).

Activist Post reports regularly about opposition, risks, and warnings associated with all “Smart” technology including 5G and the Internet of Things (IoT) (see 1, 2, 3, 4).

J.D. Power Survey: “Consumers Terrified of Self-Driving Cars; Tesla and Rideshare Screwed”
From the video: "That doesn't mean that this technology isn't good ... it means that we're moving in the right direction."
Umm - at reducing the population by (to) roadkill? :huh:
 

c.a.

The Living Force
FOTCM Member

18-22 minute Read
Summary:
84766330b84c1c97c27d68bfb88b6b37.png


What's happening in 2020 in Europe

At the end of 2013, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union reached an agreement that will implement mandatory CO2 emission targets for new passenger cars starting in 2020.

The regulations require cars sold in Europe to have average emissions of no more than 95 gCO2/km, using the NEDC test standards. Norway, although not a member of the EU, is expected to be included in the monitoring data from 2019 onwards.

The regulations will be phased in starting in 2020 when 95% of a manufacturer’s sales must be included in the calculations. In 2021, all cars are included.

Target emissions for each manufacturer will be modified by allowing higher emissions for heavier cars, the allowance is increased by 3.3 gCO2/Km for each 100 Kg of mass above 1,390 Kg. The table below summarizes the status of each manufacturer’s emissions as of 2017.

feef55817fbbd08b2a6b0df8e744217a.png

Source: International Council on Clean Transportation

The penalty for exceeding the targets is €95 per gram per car.

The chart below is an estimate of the penalties that would be imposed on each of the major car manufacturers if their emissions and sales remain the same as they were in 2018.

8bad72818c2d22c1f99cacdd5991b446.png

Source: Bloomberg

The total comes to €39 billion.

Between 2013 and 2018, manufacturers were making significant progress towards the target, but that progress was reversed after the VW “Dieselgate” scandal made diesel engines less popular. The trend toward larger SUVs also has added to average emissions, which will be impossible to meet with conventional ICE powertrains.

To avoid, or at least reduce the penalties, all the major car manufacturers are introducing new battery-electric (BEV) and plug-in hybrids (PHEV) next year. Forty-eight new PHEV and 65 new BEV models will be hitting the European market in 2020.

Auto suppliers also have negotiated a deal with the authorities where they will be able to count each BEV and any PHEV that has an emission rating below 50 gCO2/km as two cars in their calculations. These “super-credits” will help manufacturers meet regulations for the next three years. However, there's a limit on how many super-credits can be used. They can only decrease the average by up to 7.5 gCO2/km. Effectively, this adds 7.5 g to each supplier’s target, provided they make enough BEVs and PHEVs to earn those super credits.

The super credits will be gradually phased out. They will count as 1.67 and 1.33 cars in 2021 and 2022, respectively. Other zero or low emission cars, such as Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles, also can be counted as super credits, but numbers are so low that I'm ignoring them in this article.

In the table below, I have made an estimate of the number of BEVs and PHEVs that will have to be sold in Europe if the suppliers are to collectively meet the 95g target.

8213361-15713321723716803_origin.jpg

Continued:

Flashback Oct 1, 2018:
Oct.01 -- Gene Munster, Loup Ventures co-founder, discusses the biggest challenges ahead for Tesla Inc. He speaks with Bloomberg's Emily Chang on "Bloomberg Technology."
 

JEEP

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Tesla Model S - the new 'unsafe at any speed' Corvair (and even no speed)?
Tesla driver burned to death because first responders couldn’t open doors, lawsuit claims

A family is suing Tesla for the wrongful death of a man who suffocated and burned to death after he crashed his Model S, alleging that the car’s hi-tech features trapped the victim in the vehicle.

First responders in south Florida allegedly couldn’t reach Omar Awan, 48, because the vehicle’s retractable door handles failed to “auto present” after he lost control of the vehicle and slammed into a palm tree, at which point the car’s lithium ion battery caught fire.

Awan had reportedly leased the Model S, which Tesla boasted had one of the highest safety ratings of any automobile tested at the time, because of his concern for the environment, claims family attorney Stuart Grossman, in a lawsuit filed earlier this month.

“The fire engulfed the car and burned Dr. Awan beyond recognition, all because the Model S has inaccessible door handles, no other way to open the doors, and an unreasonably dangerous fire risk,” the complaint reads. The company’s lawyers have yet to respond in court or to media requests.

According to the Broward County autopsy report, Awan died as a result of “inhalation of products of combustion with a contributory cause of death of thermal injuries,” while the medical examiner said the victim “was not identifiable on scene.”

The car was towed away from the scene of the horror crash after firefighters extinguished the blaze and Awan’s remains were removed. The vehicle subsequently reignited and burned again in the junkyard.

Previously, CCTV footage showed a Tesla spontaneously combusting in a parking garage in Shanghai.

Tesla driver burned to death because first responders couldn’t open doors, lawsuit claims
For those unfamiliar:
California's Electric Vehicle Dream Is Turning Into A Nightmare

California might be blazing a trail with getting a large number of electric vehicles on the road, but the only trail California is currently blazing is the wildfire/PG&E fiasco that could once again plunge millions of Californians into the dark in the next wave of blackouts, expected today, the likes of which could sour investor confidence in purchasing a vehicle that relies on sketchy power sources.
[...]
The blackouts - which one might expect from a third-world or mismanaged nation such as Venezuela or even Pakistan, which leads the world in the number of annual blackouts - are life and death for some California residents, and the problem isn’t expected to be resolved anytime soon. But it also may mean life and death for California’s plan to encourage residents to adopt EVs.

Unlike third-world blackouts, critical California operations such as medical facilities are all equipped with backup generators for times of outage. But residents who rely on electricity to power medical devices are at great risk. And EV owners may find themselves stranded.
[...]
As for those electric vehicles that various California state agencies have earmarked $2.46 billion in public funds for—the state might do better to spend that money on some plan to keep the lights on. If that thought is not palatable enough for Californians, the state could earmark those funds as a way to keep those EVs charged.

California's Electric Vehicle Dream Is Turning Into A Nightmare
Despite accumulating setbacks, Tesla's latest earnings report indicated a surprisingly good quarter:

Here's what every major Wall Street analyst is saying about Tesla's surprisingly good quarter
 

Woodsman

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I just did some reading on Lithium Ion battery fires.

Hydrogen Fluoride gas, a major component ash given off when Lithium burns is nasty stuff! It's both corrosive as well as poisonous; apparently it burns without pain because it neutralizes nerve endings very quickly. I'd hate to get a lungful of that!

This study covered a broad range of commercial Li-ion battery cells with different chemistry, cell design and size and included large-sized automotive-classed cells, undergoing fire tests. The method was successful in evaluating fluoride gas emissions for a large variety of battery types and for various test setups.

Significant amounts of HF, ranging between 20 and 200 mg/Wh of nominal battery energy capacity, were detected from the burning Li-ion batteries. The measured HF levels, verified using two independent measurement methods, indicate that HF can pose a serious toxic threat, especially for large Li-ion batteries and in confined environments. The amounts of HF released from burning Li-ion batteries are presented as mg/Wh. If extrapolated for large battery packs the amounts would be 2–20 kg for a 100 kWh battery system, e.g. an electric vehicle and 20–200 kg for a 1000 kWh battery system, e.g. a small stationary energy storage. The immediate dangerous to life or health (IDLH) level for HF is 0.025 g/m3 (30 ppm)22 and the lethal 10 minutes HF toxicity value (AEGL-3) is 0.0139 g/m3 (170 ppm)23. The release of hydrogen fluoride from a Li-ion battery fire can therefore be a severe risk and an even greater risk in confined or semi-confined spaces.

~Toxic fluoride gas emissions from lithium-ion battery fires

While current Tesla vehicles, despite outlier horror stories, are probably quite safe, entering the age of EVs as a global market is going to create a whole new category of problem; battery fires! -While I imagine approached as any engineering problem, (the aerospace industry created black box recorders which can withstand horrendous abuse, for instance), I betcha first responders are going to require new training. And I bet battery regulations and standards are going to get strict!

I can picture batteries becoming modular, one-size-fits-all standard for vehicles, -and that they'll need to pass regular inspection to be considered road safe. Hopefully the engineering gets ironed out before a serious tragedy occurs. A parking garage fire, for instance, could be quite serious, I would think.
 

Woodsman

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Huh? I'm sure this is trivial to the point of being irrelivant, but the numbers I quoted from the study don't add up, do they? How can 0.025 g/m3 = 30ppm while the lesser amount of 0.0139 g/m3 = 170ppm?

Am I missing something or did the authors commit a typo?

The immediate dangerous to life or health (IDLH) level for HF is 0.025 g/m3 (30 ppm)22 and the lethal 10 minutes HF toxicity value (AEGL-3) is 0.0139 g/m3 (170 ppm)

Typos in research materials can be super annoying! -The fact that it's in a research document means I'm already skirting the edge of my knowledge and having to trust that the author is reliable. Where normally I'd see a mistake, say "Typo" and move on, in the case of a research paper, especially with numbers, I'm stuck wondering at an extra level what is true.

Whatever. In this case it's not important.
 
Top Bottom