Comment by jacquesm

3 hours ago

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.

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.

  • > 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.

    • > 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", "I use Lithium Ion batteries in volume"). 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.

> 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.

  • Yes, I agree. Jacquesm, I feel like you're being really aggressive over a really minor, and frankly, inconsequential point.

    • 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.

      1 reply →