Difficult to deal with an electric semi that is on fire. For cars we have baths.
The fire from the batteries lasts hours, which is a huge issue for everyone else and the fire departments.
declan_roberts
You know a Tesla was involved in an accident because they always make it part of the headline.
elicash
It's kinda like Apple where they both benefit from and also are hurt by the fact that putting "Apple" in the name makes more people click.
Added exposure/free marketing when the news is good. But then if the Duo is having some issues with cracked screens, that'll also get more attention.
dzhiurgis
Tesla doesn’t spend billions in advertising so media needs to make their money back via clickbait and ads.
If they posted such headlines about Toyota - they wouldn’t get a single ad contract from them.
ivewonyoung
There wasn't really a political angle with Apple, but the coverage of Tesla and SpaceX changed dramatically in most of the media after Musk switched sides during early Covid after a CA legislator told him to get out of CA and said F*k Elon Musk. Since then it's been a constant stream of negative stories and witchhunts that similar companies who do the same things are not subject to.
cosmicgadget
What exactly are you claiming?
It's quite obvious that Tesla has huge brand identification and Elon goes way, way out of his way to make things about himself. But are you suggesting Big Vax or a CA assemblyman is controlling the press?
bigtex
You forget all the media stories on the early 2000's about SUV's doing things, like they didn't have a driver.
rsynnott
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
reaperducer
You know a Tesla was involved in an accident because they always make it part of the headline.
Because it's novel. Once Tesla trucks are commonplace, it will no longer be noted.
No conspiracy to be had. It's just like the news covers train crashes, and not train arrivals. Because they're unusual.
mft_
You’re too kind. I think it’s just that “Tesla” generates clicks, whatever the real underlying topic.
moepstar
...that and - combined with clickbaity headlines that are, sometimes, not all that newsworthy... ugh... i actually do filter 'Tesla' from my RSS feeds because it is that bad...
Only HN gets a free pass - most of the time...
ivewonyoung
They do it because it gets clicks and upvotes on places like HN and Reddit, almost never see a positive or neutral news article about Tesla on there. SpaceX successful launch news on Reddit would have like a 65% downvote ratio to suppress it, and it works.
I guess this headline not saying "Elon Musk's Tesla" or "Elon Musk's SpaceX" in a negative news article is a slight improvement compared to places like CNN.
BatchJob
Its actually not. Most Tesla accidents are not reported as such. And thats a problem.
Teslas are death machines which should be treated as such.
throwa356262
On the contrary, problems with Teslas are underrepprted in media.
This is despite Tesla beeing involved in a significant number of high profile accidents, many with fatalities [1] [2].
According to NHTSA complaint records it is also one of cars that breaks down most often. Model Y is on the bottom of quality lists in multiple European countries [3].
Which is really unfair. Why does the media continually do that when they don't treat other car companies the same? Especially when it's clear the fault is not the vehicle?
tzs
How is it "clear the fault is not the vehicle"?
pfannkuchen
Legacy car makers probably have a longstanding relationship with the media?
insane_dreamer
because other manufacturers aren't promoting their FSD software as "safe"
hagbard_c
Because Musk->Tesla and Musk == bad according to the desired narrative to which a large fraction of the chattering classes adhere. While other car companies are generically bad (i.e. 'big company', 'climate', 'capitalism' etc.) Tesla is double-plus ungood and as such "we've always been at war with Tesla". If Musk ever decides to flip to the other side that'd quickly change and "we'd never have been at war with Tesla".
ortusdux
Are battery fires like this more damaging to the road surface vs a diesel fire?
dekhn
Depends on context and the location of the road surface and the nature of the explosion.
I interpreted the question more broadly, replacing "diesel" with "fuel".
ggreer
I'm not sure, but diesel fires are definitely more of a risk to people. Fuel can quickly spread and ignite before people in the vehicle (or bystanders) have a chance to escape. Lithium battery fires are more contained because individual cells spew flame, which heats up nearby cells, which then undergo thermal runaway. This means that battery fires take longer to release their energy, which is annoying for extinguishing them, but good for anyone who needs to get out of the wreck.
leonidasrup
There is a big difference between diesel powered engines and petrol powered engines. Diesel is much harder to ignite and this was for example big advantage for diesel powered tanks during World War II, in comparison to gasoline powered tanks.
"They introduced many innovations as they built their designs, including bell crank suspensions, as pioneers in amphibious tanks, and the use of diesel engines that were less likely to catch fire compared with gasoline tank engines that were being used at the time."
"
Diesel has a much higher flashpoint. This means the speed of deflagration is much slower. It cannot convert the diesel to vapour as quickly so can't disperse the fuel as quick to spread the surface area..
"
"
Leaking petrol is much more dangerous in an accident. It is far easier to ignite. If any leaking petrol contacts the exhaust or brake discs it could ignite causing rapid flame spread trapping people in the car. Diesel won't do this.
"
It's true that diesel is harder to ignite than gasoline, but statistically they're not much safer than gasoline, and EVs have a lower fire risk than both. Last year, diesel vehicles accounted for 11% of vehicle miles traveled in the US and were responsible for around 12% of vehicle fire deaths. EVs were 3% of vehicle miles traveled and less than 1% of vehicle fire deaths.
Diesel vehicles usually have much larger fuel tanks than gasoline vehicles, so while the chances of a crash causing a diesel fire are lower, the consequences tend to be worse. If the stats are to be believed, the two factors balance each other out.
Probably the biggest difference between EV cars and ICE cars can be summarized as:
"Electric cars have a lower incidence of fires compared to gasoline vehicles. However, it’s estimated that about one-third of fires in electric vehicles occur while the car is parked and unplugged."
Lithium packs can light up (much) faster than you sketch here. The process you describe is correct in sequence but it takes about as long to read that sentence to get to a car that is engulfed in flame. More than one person died from the combination of toxic gases and heat before they managed to get out of the car.
Lithium Ion is a very bad battery type for anything that should be safe or moves, LFP is far better and LTO is better still.
ggreer
The "I'm not sure" referred to road damage. The "definitely" referred to risk to people.
The fact that some people have died in lithium battery fires doesn't tell you if they're a greater risk than petroleum vehicle fires. Around 500 Americans die in vehicle fires every year. Last year, EVs were around 3% of vehicle miles traveled in the US, so if they're as dangerous as petroleum vehicles, we should expect 15 battery fire deaths in 2025. The actual number seems to be 2 or 3.
jacquesm
Petrol != diesel.
ggreer
By petroleum I mean gasoline and diesel.
Diesel vehicles are 11% of vehicle miles traveled in the US, and around 60 people died in diesel vehicle fires last year (12% of vehicle fire fatalities). So they seem to be as dangerous as gasoline vehicles. This is probably because while diesel is more difficult to ignite than gasoline, diesel vehicles tend to have larger fuel tanks, so the harm caused by a diesel fire tends to be greater.
jacquesm
Gasoline and diesel are very different from 'petroleum'.
Petroleum is essentially crude oil, diesel is a slightly lighter fraction and gasoline is a much lighter fraction.
Former gas station owner here, I think I know the difference. As for diesel vehicles having larger fuel tanks: they tend to be larger vehicles, and proportionally speaking they don't do much more harm because they are much easier to put out. The best way to deal with a battery fire is a controlled burn until it is spent.
As for the ratio of the fatalities: of course you need to correct for installed base.
ggreer
Yes, I know that petroleum refers to the raw material that is used to make gasoline and diesel. I needed a term that was less cumbersome than "diesel and gasoline", and "petroleum" seemed apt. If you have a suggestion for some other term, I'm all ears.
I did correct for installed base. I'm using fatalities per vehicle mile traveled. As I said, diesel vehicles are 11% of vehicle miles traveled in the US and responsible for 12% of vehicle fire deaths in the US. EVs are 3% of vehicle miles traveled and less than 1% of vehicle fire deaths, so they're safer than diesel. The only way this could be false is if battery fire deaths are grossly underreported. That seems unlikely to me, as deaths caused by any new technology tend to be overreported. It should also be surprising that battery fire deaths are so rare, because we have little experience dealing with them. Over time, we should expect the danger of battery fires to decrease as technology and emergency training improves.
At this point, I don't know what would change your mind on this topic. I would change my mind if stats showed higher fire fatality rates per vehicle miles traveled for EVs, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I feel like I'm arguing with an anti-nuclear person. Statistics show that nuclear is extremely safe, but anti-nuclear activists ignore stats and point to nuclear accidents and the dangers of radiation. Meanwhile they ignore or discount the harms caused by alternatives. I don't see how your line of argument is any different.
jacquesm
> I needed a term that was less cumbersome than "diesel and gasoline", and "petroleum" seemed apt. If you have a suggestion for some other term, I'm all ears.
Vehicle fuels?
> I did correct for installed base.
> I did correct for installed base. I'm using fatalities per vehicle mile traveled. As I said, diesel vehicles are 11% of vehicle miles traveled in the US and responsible for 12% of vehicle fire deaths in the US. EVs are 3% of vehicle miles traveled and less than 1% of vehicle fire deaths, so they're safer than diesel.
That conclusion doesn't hold up.
This isn't about EVs in general, it is about EV trucks vs Diesel trucks.
> At this point, I don't know what would change your mind on this topic. I would change my mind if stats showed higher fire fatality rates per vehicle miles traveled for EVs, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I feel like I'm arguing with an anti-nuclear person. Statistics show that nuclear is extremely safe, but anti-nuclear activists ignore stats and point to nuclear accidents and the dangers of radiation. Meanwhile they ignore or discount the harms caused by alternatives. I don't see how your line of argument is any different.
Totally different subject.
ggreer
> Totally different subject.
Yes, I was using an analogy.
I don't know what's going on with you today. You get hung up on language even when you know what I mean. You argue from authority, eg: "former gas station owner here" and "I use Lithium Ion batteries in volume", as if those experiences refute statistics. You don't address my stats about vehicle fire fatalities. You don't explain why you think my conclusion doesn't hold up. And you won't say what would change your mind.
We're not having a debate. You're just contradicting me.
flanz_10
> Gasoline and diesel are very different from 'petroleum'.
They are refined from petroleum. I wonder if there is a dialect difference here? Also, you really seem intent on proving someone wrong over a relatively inert statement.
karlgkk
Yes, I agree. Jacquesm, I feel like you're being really aggressive over a really minor, and frankly, inconsequential point.
jacquesm
That minor, inconsequential point is the difference between a fire that is easy to put out, one that has burned out before the firetruck gets there and one that you simply can't put out.
karlgkk
The context seems to be lithium vs liquid fuel, with regards to passenger injury and/or road surface.
First responder needs are a third, somewhat separate/somewhat related concern. You seem really intent on "being right" and aggressive about something, literally anything.
I encourage you to line up and then bundle up your thoughts on this matter, and present them here because, externally, you seem to be all over the place. Also, I don't really feel like further engaging with hostility while it's still morning.
flanz_10
> If you're not sure, why the definitely?
They said "I'm not sure" to the road surface question, and "definitely more of a risk to people".
Roads and people are different things.
jacquesm
Yes, and petrol and diesel are also different things. Completely different flashpoint and activation energy.
flanz_10
I don't recall saying they weren't. Was there any confusion in our thread about this?
Again, roads and people are different.
jacquesm
OP uses petrol and diesel as though they are exchangeable isn't sure about the damage a fire of one kind (or the other) does to the pavement but we have to trust their expertise anyway?
flanz_10
I don't seem to have that confusion. So, why is that my problem? Also, what they said about fires of either fuel type seems reasonable.
At this point, it seems like you're attacking them out of a minor, localized grudge, more than anything else.
AKA: troll behavior. So, I am choosing to step away. Feel free to have the last word.
So then, you know what you are doing? That post isn't the defense you thought it was, tbh.
You see a similarity in a post you think is trolling to yours, and then post it... then you're the one comparing your own post to trolling.
I don't know why I'm replying to someone who takes such a hostile tone. "have the last word" is a great idea, you can go for it.
jacquesm
Sorry, it was just meant as an illustration that in these things a bit of precision matters. If there is someone in this thread that is hostile that would be you.
flanz_10
In retrospect, I was being needlessly pissy that day. Now that I read it with fresh eyes, I wish that I could amend it.
paxy
Regular cars usually burn out in 30 mins or less. It's a fair assumption that a 10-15 hour fire would be more damaging.
mingus88
I’d think it really depends on the heat and proximity to the road
If a battery pack burn less hot and sits higher off the roadway, I can see it being less damaging
close04
Diesel fires are put out much faster than battery fires especially when the battery is huge and fully charged. Battery fires are also much hotter, up to 1000 C (~1800 F), metal fires are no joke.
Diesel damages the asphalt more in different ways. It attacks the binder in the asphalt and softens it up (after all they are both byproducts of the same crude oil precursor and just want to recombine). This process takes even days so if the cleanup is fast there's minimal damage. Most of the fuel that doesn't burn runs to the side of the road anyway.
GrinningFool
> especially when the battery is huge and fully charged.
Lithium battery energy density is much lower than petroleum, so the difference between a fully charged 100kWh battery (which weighs over half a ton) and an empty one is less than 3 gallons of diesel. Most of the energy expended in a battery fire is from the electrolyte reacting with the cathode material.
Over/under-charged batteries are a safety hazard because they can generate hydrogen gas which can initiate a fire, but the energy released from the fire will be pretty much the same.
jacquesm
Lithium fires are brutal, they're extremely fast and the toxic gases are just as dangerous as the fire itself:
If we're going to count industrial accidents, then oil kills way more people. There are deaths from disasters involving wells, refineries, pipelines, tankers, and gas stations. But because they've been happening for over a century, we accept them as a fact of life. Even correcting for the much smaller install base of EVs and lower number of vehicle miles traveled, fossil fuels are far more deadly.
jacquesm
Oh, absolutely, in the aggregate there is no contest here. I just wanted to illustrate how incredibly fast lithium fires can spread.
I've made a bit of a study of this because I use Lithium Ion batteries in volume. I take a lot of safety precautions because I realize full well how dangerous they are. At the same time I have a 25L canister of diesel and another with gasoline sitting around and I have zero expectation of either of those spontaneously combusting.
klaff
The energy released during a fire is higher than what is accessible by discharging the battery. Here's one paper describing ratios from 1.25 to 5 depending on access to oxygen during the combustion.
I'm pretty sure you're reading the paper wrong. Of the 29 tests they did, 5 were in air, and all of those were with fully charged batteries. The 5x ratio is the difference between electrical energy stored in the battery and energy released in atmosphere. They did not measure different states of charge versus energy released in atmosphere. That's why the figures for the nitrogen and atmosphere tests are bar charts instead of line charts.
The relationship between energy stored and energy released was mostly determined by how big the batteries were, not their state of charge. Only 4 of their tests varied state of charge, and those were all in vacuum (with cells #1 & #6), and state of charge was never below 60%.
klaff
I wasn't clear, sorry, and you understood the point from the article. I thought you might have been assuming that a 100 kWh battery would produce 100 kWh of energy when burned, and I was trying to point out that when the battery is burned, you can get a much larger amount of energy. My apologies for wasting your time.
tartoran
Which fumes are worse, from EVs or diesel filers?
jordanb
You don't want to breathe either, but the answer generally is battery fires which can produce extremely toxic gas like hydrogen flouride
Honestly no idea. But after receiving multiple fire trainings and talking to trained firemen, I have to say that all else being equal (and gun to the head because I actually want neither) I'll take a diesel fire over a battery fire any day.
A lot of dangerous fumes come from the other material burning around the source. And at 1000C plenty of neighboring stuff decides to burn.
breckenedge
Lithium fuel can melt asphalt seams
darksaints
Yes
zerocool0101
how?
xxs
You can't use a fire extinguisher for one to put it down. Li-Ion effectively self-sustain when ignited.
The only version of putting it down is letting it burn out.
Morealso diesel is hard to ignite on its own, hence the ICE use compression not spark
darksaints
Not only that, but the fires can burn hot enough to melt the asphalt, and at high enough temperatures the bitumen in the asphalt will vaporize and feed the flames.
maxdo
Electrek is so boring , big news :
clickbait vs statistic:
Gasoline truck :
From 2018 to 2022, large trucks accounted for an estimated 15,462 fires, 46 deaths, 102 injuries, and $416 million in property damage each year. That works out to roughly 40 large-truck fires a day.
Overall, Gas cars ( regular size) , getting on fire more often vs electric cars.
lr1970
You should normalize by the number of trucks on the road in each category (gas/electric). Absolute number of fires make little sense if you have 1000 times more ICE trucks than electric ones.
briffle
Kind of curious how many of those 15,462 fires shut down a freeway for 10 hours because they can't put it out?
bradlys
This has a much bigger impact. The impact of having to reroute all of a major freeway's traffic is huge. Easily eating an hour from 100k+ people.
GrinningFool
On the other hand, there are million(s) of gasoline trucks on the road and thousands(?) of electric.
maxdo
Yep and you got one incident , it’s a statistical mistake . Regular ev shows a much more clear picture .especially as technology matures , eg 2025/26
cosmicgadget
Why did Electrek report on the Nikola thing? Trucks roll downhill all the time!!!
boplicity
Per-mile stats is helpful info, not the overall totals.
pengaru
Wow, not much left of the semi - would love to see a photo of the metallic puddle it's presumably become...
sidcool
Electrek is a cesspool of bias. I'm not a fan of Musk, but electrek's irrational hatred is uncalled for
[deleted]
Comment removed.
nxm
Rant’s not one bit reverent
fourseventy
Is there an article every time a Mack Truck catches on fire?
georgeecollins
There is every time the fire shuts down the 880 for ten hours.
sonic45132
As the article points out, the fleet size of Tesla Semis is very small. And as this is the 2nd Tesla semi fire, this represents a much larger share of these trucks, than any single Mack Truck fire. If Mack trucks caught fire at these rates it may well make the news.
rsynnott
This would be roughly equivalent to 5,000 of them catching fire at once, scaled for the number which exist, so, yeah, might draw some comment.
rsynnott
This is the second one of these to have blown up. It looks like about 200 exist. It is _notable_ that 1% of the entire installed base has caught fire.
phyzome
New technology bears additional focus.
reaperducer
Is there an article every time a Mack Truck catches on fire?
Yes, if you watch the local traffic reports. Absolutely. Why do you ask? Are you trying to imply something?
dpkirchner
Yeah.
vessenes
The article is confusing - at one point it says the truck left the road, hit a bunch of stuff and caught on fire. At another it says they don't know if it was a battery pack fire that spread. I'll be interested to read the final safety reports and see if this was just an unlucky crash or something really bad happened with all that lithium.
orwin
I think you misread. The article state tesla Semi has had 2 fire in 2 years. The first one because the truck hist stuff and left the road in Nevada, the second (this one, the subject of the article) in California for unknown reasons. This is relevant because the Tesla semi fleet is small (86 vehicles 2 years ago, probably below 500 atm) and because battery fire are hard to stop, so we want to know what caused it. If EV fire last 10 time longer than diesel fire, but happen 10 time less often (we need more studies but it seems this is the initial consensus), this is not really an issue, but if they happen more often, we _need_ to know why and fix it.
Also i don't want trucks to catch fire everytime they hit a cow or a boar, the roads around where i used to live would be consistently closed :/
cucumber3732842
Approx one (with a big error bar) fire per 100 vehicles per year sounds about right based on my unscientific dealings with auction oil field trucks.
My gut feel is that vehicles of all types seem way more disposed to fire than stuff from the 90s through 2010s.
AlotOfReading
This vehicle was part of a manufacturer-owned highway fleet. That means it received proactive maintenance by trained personnel on a regular schedule, with full access to engineers for diagnosis and OEM replacement parts, and ran on good roads in the mild California climate. It's practically pampered compared to oilfield haulers, especially the ones that live long enough to be auctioned off. They're not comparable.
As an aside, some of the vehicles I've worked on serve in oilfields and I'd be horrified to discover 1% of them were catching fire annually.
hansvm
For some other unscientific findings, that'd suggest 5 vehicle fires per year just from residents of my apartment complex. I've seen 1 in 8 years, and that was arson.
bryanlarsen
Those trucks are probably doing over 200,000 miles per year and your apartment's cars under 20, so the fires/mile ratio seems comparable.
hansvm
The fires/mile ratio seems like a good idea (skewed a bit by relative driving habits of professional vs typical drivers). It turns out those numbers are all pretty readily available. All miles from all sources (including semis) tally to 3.3T/yr. All car fires from all sources (including crashes, so in the context of semis spontaneously combusting these numbers will make the 1/100 rate look even better than it should be, though separate sources indicate that most car fires aren't from collisions, so that's perhaps a small effect) total to 210k/yr. You then find that, smoothing out all underlying subgroups and data, there's a fire every 15.5M miles.
Applied to residential apartments, there's an average miles per year of 14k or so (should be less here than average based on anecdata, high fuel prices discouraging driving, and everything being close even if you do drive and usually close enough to be walkable, but let's assume 14k/yr is a reasonable baseline), giving us a fire every 1100 vehicles, not every 100.
1/1k is more plausible to me (still "feels" high, but it doesn't trigger the baseline absurdity checks I have in the back of my mind). 1/100 suggests that every year in uni one of my classmates should've had their car burn down. 1/100 suggests that every year my hometown newspaper should report 30 cars burning down -- one every week or two (and given that the newspaper covers the entire county it should actually be 3/week). It's a pretty high rate. The typical person knows hundreds of people well enough that a car fire would often crop up in conversation eventually, and I don't think the typical person knows anyone whose car caught fire. Elaborating on that, I don't think the typical person doesn't know somebody whose car caught fire _ever_, much less in the last year.
bryanlarsen
In my personal experience pretty much every old farmer has had multiple vehicle fires. It's quite likely location dependent -- if you're in an area which clogs up air filters quickly, and or where dry straw getting in where it shouldn't is a likely experience, vehicle fires are very common.
hansvm
Maybe. That hometown I referenced has 3k people in the city (not farmers) and 12k people in the county outside the city (mostly farmers in varying capacities). It's the only place I've lived where it's common for people to cut, mill, and dry their own lumber for economic reasons, or (ignoring parts of Alaska I've lived in) for hunting to be an economically rational thing to do. There are literally zero vehicle fires. A home or business per year or two burns down, but at the 1/100 vehicle fire rate we expect 3 fires per week, and there are zero in the last decade. It's a hot, dry climate made up of mostly farmers with extremely shoddy equipment.
Anecdotes aren't everything. If there are 1/1k fires annually then those have to come from somewhere, so your "location dependent" idea makes a lot of sense. I'm passionately curious now as to where those fires actually happen though. It's not just farmers with bad equipment in bad scenarios.
mlmonkey
That's a different accident, and the last one involving a Tesla Semi (before the current one). The point they're making is: that one involved an actual crash, but this one did not. So we should investigate this thoroughly to see what happened (as the NTSB is going to do, of course), because large vehicles should not spontaneously combust on a public highway, especially one as busy as the I-880.
On a related note: I wish companies like Tesla, which are conducting live experiments on public highways and thereby inconveniencing 1000s of people when an experiment goes awry, are held accountable and forced to compensate those who got stuck on the highway, missed doctors appointments, job interviews, deliveries, etc. Maybe something like a fine of $5000 per driver impacted should be levied, and given to each driver?
bdamm
This is the point of insurance no? It's the underwriter's job to figure out what the risk probability of insuring a specific vehicle is, and then to represent that risk in future lawsuits while paying out the named insured in the meantime. If you think the traveling public should be party to insurance from vehicle collisions in general, then that's a legislative framework change for all road users (and you can bet your behind that will mean higher premiums for everyone, which I'm personally ok with. We've externalized far too many costs. Let's ban writedowns for exploratory oil drills too.)
mlmonkey
As a driver, how would you track down the insurance company behind this trucking company? People have other things to do.
But there must be some compensation to be forced to become an unwilling participant in Musk's experiments! Otherwise what's the disincentive for these experimenters?
bdamm
Well if people are stuck in traffic for hours due to a technical problem closing the highway then I think they have lots of time!
My main point, though, was that this idea of yours is great and that the legal structure would be compensation through insurance. The insurers figure out what is risky and what isn't (regardless of the company) and then pass that risk on to their rate payers. The rate payers know that trialing risky technology costs more and it is baked into the operational cost. Yes, people causing accidents should be liable for the time lost! It doesn't matter who causes the accident, Musk or just Joe Schmoe!
HOWEVER, what you'll find out is that one or two meltdowns on I880 is barely going to move the needle. Your average every day collision is going to just get a lot more expensive, with a small fender bender easily causing millions in payouts. The technology companies will still be a drop in the bucket and will happily pass on the risk to their eager customers, who are absolutely thrilled at the idea of cutting out a massive gasoline expendidure from their operation sheets. A 1% or 2% cut in freight cost is massive, and these new trucks are promising to be cost-competitive with RAIL. That is an absolute game changer, and shipping companies would be happy to pay more for insurance since a couple product development failures is absolutely nothing in the big picture of the world and where traffic slowdown comes from.
I love your idea, but if what you want is to punish progressive product companies, this isn't the way to do it.
_Microft
The accident in which the vehicle left the road happened in 2024.
2OEH8eoCRo0
What's confusing? First sentence of article:
> A Tesla Semi caught fire on Interstate 880 in Hayward, California, on Tuesday evening, and there was no crash.
Further:
> The driver told officers the truck caught fire and that they didn’t know why. No other vehicles were involved.
close04
> I'll be interested to read the final safety reports
Are you still confident that the final reports will be free of interference and the agency investigating anything Tesla (Musk) related won't be gutted before it gets the chance to issue anything damaging?
dam_jackalopes
I worked at a "Semi" OEM where we were doing work on battery, hydrogen powered, etc. development as part of the SuperTruck effort and these events are what kept us up at night. Really glad the driver was able to get out.
I suspect that we're going to socialize the costs for getting first responders prepared (in so much as we actually do try to get them prepared) for these type of events. As a concept, that's fine but it leaves a really bad taste in the mouth when you're doing that to the benefit of an actor like Tesla.
AtlanticThird
You're upset that we're socializing the cost of training first responders, just like we have for all training for first responders?
dam_jackalopes
No, as I stated in the comment, as a concept there's no issue with that.
The problem is that the costs for preparing for these events are going to be enormous, are going to be shouldered by systems that are struggling to maintain current capabilities and that those costs are not proportional to the benefits being received by having these vehicles operating.
The orgs that create the problem receive billions in value, mostly, from the federal gov't while the costs are shouldered by local gov't. This is before you take into account how those same orgs are behaving in other areas of society.
AtlanticThird
You're upset that we're socializing the cost of training first responders, just like we have for all training for first responders?
You said "No" and then to went on to explain your answer as if it was a "Yes"
dam_jackalopes
I feel as though I've articulated my issues with the disproportionate expense of dealing with EV Class 8s from a first responder perspective being placed on local communities.
If you want to read that as not wanting the public to pay for first responders, you're of course free to do so.
The fire from the batteries lasts hours, which is a huge issue for everyone else and the fire departments.
Added exposure/free marketing when the news is good. But then if the Duo is having some issues with cracked screens, that'll also get more attention.
If they posted such headlines about Toyota - they wouldn’t get a single ad contract from them.
It's quite obvious that Tesla has huge brand identification and Elon goes way, way out of his way to make things about himself. But are you suggesting Big Vax or a CA assemblyman is controlling the press?
Because it's novel. Once Tesla trucks are commonplace, it will no longer be noted.
No conspiracy to be had. It's just like the news covers train crashes, and not train arrivals. Because they're unusual.
Only HN gets a free pass - most of the time...
I guess this headline not saying "Elon Musk's Tesla" or "Elon Musk's SpaceX" in a negative news article is a slight improvement compared to places like CNN.
Teslas are death machines which should be treated as such.
This is despite Tesla beeing involved in a significant number of high profile accidents, many with fatalities [1] [2].
According to NHTSA complaint records it is also one of cars that breaks down most often. Model Y is on the bottom of quality lists in multiple European countries [3].
[1] https://myelectricsparks.com/tesla-crash-germany-father-chil...
[2] https://apnews.com/article/car-crash-tesla-france-fire-be8ec...
[3] https://www.tuev-nord.de/de/wissen/ratgeber-und-tipps-mobili...
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Tanker-fire-destroys-...
(Also, the rebuilding was epic, the only time I've seen the state and a contractor move quickly: https://longreads.com/2024/07/15/rebuilding-the-maze/ )
"They introduced many innovations as they built their designs, including bell crank suspensions, as pioneers in amphibious tanks, and the use of diesel engines that were less likely to catch fire compared with gasoline tank engines that were being used at the time."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_World_War_II
The answer from an actual firefighter:
" Diesel has a much higher flashpoint. This means the speed of deflagration is much slower. It cannot convert the diesel to vapour as quickly so can't disperse the fuel as quick to spread the surface area.. "
" Leaking petrol is much more dangerous in an accident. It is far easier to ignite. If any leaking petrol contacts the exhaust or brake discs it could ignite causing rapid flame spread trapping people in the car. Diesel won't do this. "
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-for-diesel-cars-to-expl...
Diesel vehicles usually have much larger fuel tanks than gasoline vehicles, so while the chances of a crash causing a diesel fire are lower, the consequences tend to be worse. If the stats are to be believed, the two factors balance each other out.
Mechanical failure or malfunction as a factor 30%
Electrical failure or malfunction as a factor 12%
Collision, knock down, run over or overturn 3%
Intentional cause 4%
https://thedailyautomotive.com/what-causes-car-fires/
Probably the biggest difference between EV cars and ICE cars can be summarized as:
"Electric cars have a lower incidence of fires compared to gasoline vehicles. However, it’s estimated that about one-third of fires in electric vehicles occur while the car is parked and unplugged."
https://thedailyautomotive.com/do-electric-cars-catch-fire/
Electric Car Fire Statistics: What the Data Actually Shows
"The most dangerous moment for an EV is not on the highway. It is in a body shop or a scrapyard."
https://thedailyautomotive.com/how-many-electric-car-fires-p...
> definitely
If you're not sure, why the definitely?
Lithium packs can light up (much) faster than you sketch here. The process you describe is correct in sequence but it takes about as long to read that sentence to get to a car that is engulfed in flame. More than one person died from the combination of toxic gases and heat before they managed to get out of the car.
Lithium Ion is a very bad battery type for anything that should be safe or moves, LFP is far better and LTO is better still.
The fact that some people have died in lithium battery fires doesn't tell you if they're a greater risk than petroleum vehicle fires. Around 500 Americans die in vehicle fires every year. Last year, EVs were around 3% of vehicle miles traveled in the US, so if they're as dangerous as petroleum vehicles, we should expect 15 battery fire deaths in 2025. The actual number seems to be 2 or 3.
Diesel vehicles are 11% of vehicle miles traveled in the US, and around 60 people died in diesel vehicle fires last year (12% of vehicle fire fatalities). So they seem to be as dangerous as gasoline vehicles. This is probably because while diesel is more difficult to ignite than gasoline, diesel vehicles tend to have larger fuel tanks, so the harm caused by a diesel fire tends to be greater.
Petroleum is essentially crude oil, diesel is a slightly lighter fraction and gasoline is a much lighter fraction.
Former gas station owner here, I think I know the difference. As for diesel vehicles having larger fuel tanks: they tend to be larger vehicles, and proportionally speaking they don't do much more harm because they are much easier to put out. The best way to deal with a battery fire is a controlled burn until it is spent.
As for the ratio of the fatalities: of course you need to correct for installed base.
I did correct for installed base. I'm using fatalities per vehicle mile traveled. As I said, diesel vehicles are 11% of vehicle miles traveled in the US and responsible for 12% of vehicle fire deaths in the US. EVs are 3% of vehicle miles traveled and less than 1% of vehicle fire deaths, so they're safer than diesel. The only way this could be false is if battery fire deaths are grossly underreported. That seems unlikely to me, as deaths caused by any new technology tend to be overreported. It should also be surprising that battery fire deaths are so rare, because we have little experience dealing with them. Over time, we should expect the danger of battery fires to decrease as technology and emergency training improves.
At this point, I don't know what would change your mind on this topic. I would change my mind if stats showed higher fire fatality rates per vehicle miles traveled for EVs, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I feel like I'm arguing with an anti-nuclear person. Statistics show that nuclear is extremely safe, but anti-nuclear activists ignore stats and point to nuclear accidents and the dangers of radiation. Meanwhile they ignore or discount the harms caused by alternatives. I don't see how your line of argument is any different.
Vehicle fuels?
> I did correct for installed base. > I did correct for installed base. I'm using fatalities per vehicle mile traveled. As I said, diesel vehicles are 11% of vehicle miles traveled in the US and responsible for 12% of vehicle fire deaths in the US. EVs are 3% of vehicle miles traveled and less than 1% of vehicle fire deaths, so they're safer than diesel.
That conclusion doesn't hold up.
This isn't about EVs in general, it is about EV trucks vs Diesel trucks.
> At this point, I don't know what would change your mind on this topic. I would change my mind if stats showed higher fire fatality rates per vehicle miles traveled for EVs, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I feel like I'm arguing with an anti-nuclear person. Statistics show that nuclear is extremely safe, but anti-nuclear activists ignore stats and point to nuclear accidents and the dangers of radiation. Meanwhile they ignore or discount the harms caused by alternatives. I don't see how your line of argument is any different.
Totally different subject.
Yes, I was using an analogy.
I don't know what's going on with you today. You get hung up on language even when you know what I mean. You argue from authority, eg: "former gas station owner here" and "I use Lithium Ion batteries in volume", as if those experiences refute statistics. You don't address my stats about vehicle fire fatalities. You don't explain why you think my conclusion doesn't hold up. And you won't say what would change your mind.
We're not having a debate. You're just contradicting me.
They are refined from petroleum. I wonder if there is a dialect difference here? Also, you really seem intent on proving someone wrong over a relatively inert statement.
First responder needs are a third, somewhat separate/somewhat related concern. You seem really intent on "being right" and aggressive about something, literally anything.
I encourage you to line up and then bundle up your thoughts on this matter, and present them here because, externally, you seem to be all over the place. Also, I don't really feel like further engaging with hostility while it's still morning.
They said "I'm not sure" to the road surface question, and "definitely more of a risk to people".
Roads and people are different things.
Again, roads and people are different.
At this point, it seems like you're attacking them out of a minor, localized grudge, more than anything else.
AKA: troll behavior. So, I am choosing to step away. Feel free to have the last word.
You see a similarity in a post you think is trolling to yours, and then post it... then you're the one comparing your own post to trolling.
I don't know why I'm replying to someone who takes such a hostile tone. "have the last word" is a great idea, you can go for it.
If a battery pack burn less hot and sits higher off the roadway, I can see it being less damaging
Diesel damages the asphalt more in different ways. It attacks the binder in the asphalt and softens it up (after all they are both byproducts of the same crude oil precursor and just want to recombine). This process takes even days so if the cleanup is fast there's minimal damage. Most of the fuel that doesn't burn runs to the side of the road anyway.
Huh, TIL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10973-018-7899-y
Over/under-charged batteries are a safety hazard because they can generate hydrogen gas which can initiate a fire, but the energy released from the fire will be pretty much the same.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/about-20-bodies-f...
I've made a bit of a study of this because I use Lithium Ion batteries in volume. I take a lot of safety precautions because I realize full well how dangerous they are. At the same time I have a 25L canister of diesel and another with gasoline sitting around and I have zero expectation of either of those spontaneously combusting.
https://cea.hal.science/cea-05234204v1/document
The relationship between energy stored and energy released was mostly determined by how big the batteries were, not their state of charge. Only 4 of their tests varied state of charge, and those were all in vacuum (with cells #1 & #6), and state of charge was never below 60%.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lADLvwAJs-c
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fluoride
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/things-i-won-t-tou...
A lot of dangerous fumes come from the other material burning around the source. And at 1000C plenty of neighboring stuff decides to burn.
The only version of putting it down is letting it burn out.
Morealso diesel is hard to ignite on its own, hence the ICE use compression not spark
clickbait vs statistic:
Gasoline truck :
From 2018 to 2022, large trucks accounted for an estimated 15,462 fires, 46 deaths, 102 injuries, and $416 million in property damage each year. That works out to roughly 40 large-truck fires a day.
Overall, Gas cars ( regular size) , getting on fire more often vs electric cars.
Yes, if you watch the local traffic reports. Absolutely. Why do you ask? Are you trying to imply something?
Also i don't want trucks to catch fire everytime they hit a cow or a boar, the roads around where i used to live would be consistently closed :/
My gut feel is that vehicles of all types seem way more disposed to fire than stuff from the 90s through 2010s.
As an aside, some of the vehicles I've worked on serve in oilfields and I'd be horrified to discover 1% of them were catching fire annually.
Applied to residential apartments, there's an average miles per year of 14k or so (should be less here than average based on anecdata, high fuel prices discouraging driving, and everything being close even if you do drive and usually close enough to be walkable, but let's assume 14k/yr is a reasonable baseline), giving us a fire every 1100 vehicles, not every 100.
1/1k is more plausible to me (still "feels" high, but it doesn't trigger the baseline absurdity checks I have in the back of my mind). 1/100 suggests that every year in uni one of my classmates should've had their car burn down. 1/100 suggests that every year my hometown newspaper should report 30 cars burning down -- one every week or two (and given that the newspaper covers the entire county it should actually be 3/week). It's a pretty high rate. The typical person knows hundreds of people well enough that a car fire would often crop up in conversation eventually, and I don't think the typical person knows anyone whose car caught fire. Elaborating on that, I don't think the typical person doesn't know somebody whose car caught fire _ever_, much less in the last year.
Anecdotes aren't everything. If there are 1/1k fires annually then those have to come from somewhere, so your "location dependent" idea makes a lot of sense. I'm passionately curious now as to where those fires actually happen though. It's not just farmers with bad equipment in bad scenarios.
On a related note: I wish companies like Tesla, which are conducting live experiments on public highways and thereby inconveniencing 1000s of people when an experiment goes awry, are held accountable and forced to compensate those who got stuck on the highway, missed doctors appointments, job interviews, deliveries, etc. Maybe something like a fine of $5000 per driver impacted should be levied, and given to each driver?
But there must be some compensation to be forced to become an unwilling participant in Musk's experiments! Otherwise what's the disincentive for these experimenters?
My main point, though, was that this idea of yours is great and that the legal structure would be compensation through insurance. The insurers figure out what is risky and what isn't (regardless of the company) and then pass that risk on to their rate payers. The rate payers know that trialing risky technology costs more and it is baked into the operational cost. Yes, people causing accidents should be liable for the time lost! It doesn't matter who causes the accident, Musk or just Joe Schmoe!
HOWEVER, what you'll find out is that one or two meltdowns on I880 is barely going to move the needle. Your average every day collision is going to just get a lot more expensive, with a small fender bender easily causing millions in payouts. The technology companies will still be a drop in the bucket and will happily pass on the risk to their eager customers, who are absolutely thrilled at the idea of cutting out a massive gasoline expendidure from their operation sheets. A 1% or 2% cut in freight cost is massive, and these new trucks are promising to be cost-competitive with RAIL. That is an absolute game changer, and shipping companies would be happy to pay more for insurance since a couple product development failures is absolutely nothing in the big picture of the world and where traffic slowdown comes from.
I love your idea, but if what you want is to punish progressive product companies, this isn't the way to do it.
> A Tesla Semi caught fire on Interstate 880 in Hayward, California, on Tuesday evening, and there was no crash.
Further:
> The driver told officers the truck caught fire and that they didn’t know why. No other vehicles were involved.
Are you still confident that the final reports will be free of interference and the agency investigating anything Tesla (Musk) related won't be gutted before it gets the chance to issue anything damaging?
I suspect that we're going to socialize the costs for getting first responders prepared (in so much as we actually do try to get them prepared) for these type of events. As a concept, that's fine but it leaves a really bad taste in the mouth when you're doing that to the benefit of an actor like Tesla.
The problem is that the costs for preparing for these events are going to be enormous, are going to be shouldered by systems that are struggling to maintain current capabilities and that those costs are not proportional to the benefits being received by having these vehicles operating.
The orgs that create the problem receive billions in value, mostly, from the federal gov't while the costs are shouldered by local gov't. This is before you take into account how those same orgs are behaving in other areas of society.
You said "No" and then to went on to explain your answer as if it was a "Yes"
If you want to read that as not wanting the public to pay for first responders, you're of course free to do so.