← Back to context

Comment by jacquesm

5 hours ago

> 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" 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.