I wonder, though, why it would be the Volt having these problems if the root cause has something to do with the lithium ion batteries. In fact, I would think that the hybrids would then be the most dangerous since they throw gasoline into the mix. In that case you would have the normal dangers of a gas power car, compounded with whatever is alledgedly setting of these fires.
I agree with technophile about the inaccuracy of this article. I really do not think an EV will ever be anything other than a niche vehicle in my life time and have a multitude of reasons why they will not suit my lifestyle, but to focus on possible fires is ridiculous. As many posters have mentioned, we drive vehicles carrying an explosive liquid, but we should worry about a big battery. That is analogous to critcizing a politician for the size of his ears and ignoring the destructiveness of his policies.
Experts I've talked with suggest that the crash MIGHT have been the cause. The electrodes in lithium-ion batteries are so close together that a dent in the cell case could cause them to touch each other inside the cell, causing a short circuit. If this is the case, then a heavier battery case might be in order, as you suggest, Alex.
The author writes "fires in which Chevy Volts were involved or nearby". Then points out in the first two that the Volt was declared innocent. Then titled the article "Chevy Volt Battery Fires Arouse Investigations" -- note use of the plural "Battery Fires". If the Volts are known not to have caused the fires in the first two incidents, why bring those incidents up under the title "Battery Fires"? It seems unfair to the Volt and likely to give an inaccurate impression of guilt. You could just as (un)fairly list the nearby pavement, the Earth, the atmosphere (which WAS involved in the fires), buildings, drivers, men named Fred, etc.
I'd like to see more care taken with product reputations.
For the record, I've never owned a Chevy or an EV and have no involvement with Chevrolet or any of its divisions.
This is incredibly silly, use a little common sense. Batteries are inherently safer than a 14 gallon can of gasoline. All the examples they give are false examples anyway. They give 3 examples, 2 of which are disproved in the same sentence that identifies them. The last one was a car that survived a head on collision, and then was inappropriately driven without inspection and repair.. i.e., this article is nothing more the perpetuation of the kingdom of fear with the goal of maintaining a society who's economy is based on an obsolete energy source, fossil fuels. If you were really concerned about driver safety, and not prematurely ending any and every technology that can compeat with fossil fuels, you would have performed a comprehensive comparison of which is more dangerious, gasoline or batteries, based on likeliness of fire and severity of fire. Without question, and I do dare to request a challenge, without question, an electric powered engine + fuel containment system will always, always without question, be safe than an equivalent gasoline powered engine + fuel containment system. For example, if you were to intentionally sabotage both types of cars with the intent of inflicting the most damage, the best you could do with the electric car is start a fire and engulf the car; With a gasoline car, you could cause a massive explosion + fire. Of note, the Volt is both gas and electric, lol, so you got the worst of both worlds. Chevy = Big Oil, still refusing to give up the obsolete fuel source... killing millions every year... for nothing more than immediate profit at the cost of long term profitability and technological progress.
Three fires where Chevy volt vehicles were in the area, only one of them remotely attributed to the car, and that one was a crashed vehicle improperly stored? Does this really mean anything other than a slow-news week? Of course any vehicle that has crashed may catch fire. In most cars the battery is close to the front, both for cooling and for weight distribution. And one of the first things that a responsible responder will do is to disconnect the battery. So we know that any battery in a crash does indeed constitute a hazard. But most vehicles are never crashed, so that does not apply to them. The design of vehicles using battery power, at least those made by the aouto companies, has been one of extereme caution. All of the car companies are aware of the hordes of hungry lawyers waiting for some mistake, with the result that they have multiple layers of safety provisions in the design of these vehicles.
The external charging systems are another story, since some of them are not made by the automakers. But standard good engineering practice, in addition to the various electrical codes, plus the need for certification, assure that these systems are not fire hazards. Consider what a proven fault would do to future sales, and it is clear that the motivation to be safe is quite strong.
That leaves the installation of the charging system in the home as a potential source of a hazard. BUt then consider that most of those installations would be inspected by a municiple building inspector, and it is clear that any chance of an incorrect installation is unlikely. What remains are do-it-yourself installations by homeowners, who have unknown skill levels. That would certainly be brought out in any fire investigation, and loudly proclaimed as the cause, at least by most media. But we have not heard of any such installations being related to any of the fires.
So the logical conclusion based on current information is that non-crashed vehicles are not any greater hazard than any other ones. Now, do we hear any complaints about the hazards related to gasoline powered vehicles? Gas vapors from an open fill tube are far more likely than electrical leakage from an open battery charging door.
Am I correct in making the inference from the story and from JimT's comment that heat is the causative factor? If so, then safety is in play during driving (a well-designed battery cooling system) and can be brought into play during charging (if the rules JimT mentions are followed). So the outlier is in crashes. What can be done here? Would seem like there needs to be more protection surrounding the batteries, which means more weight, which means poorer performance (which then means you need more batteries). Similarly, poor fire protection in crashes might indicate the need for an active fire suppression system, which would also add weight, cost, etc...
In a bid to boost the viability of lithium-based electric car batteries, a team at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has developed a chemistry that could possibly double an EV’s driving range while cutting its battery cost in half.
Using Siemens NX software, a team of engineering students from the University of Michigan built an electric vehicle and raced in the 2013 Bridgestone World Solar Challenge. One of those students blogged for Design News throughout the race.
Robots that walk have come a long way from simple barebones walking machines or pairs of legs without an upper body and head. Much of the research these days focuses on making more humanoid robots. But they are not all created equal.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.