# Tesla's battery technology discussion



## James Kirk (17 Jan 2020)

joe sod said:


> Ultimately they have to win against the big car companies that have a long history of producing very complicated products , producing a modern diesel car is still not easy. Therefore I still think that the likes of Toyota or Nissan will still be able to overtake Tesla in electric cars especially if they take them on with pricing. Because electric cars are still a small share of the overall car market they have not needed to take on Tesla yet,they are not going to cannibalise their conventional car sales by competing with Tesla on pricing.



Joe.  can i just say a few things on this.  Toyota have so far made no effort to produce any full EV. They say they will in 2025. However they are investing the bulk of R&D in hydrogen fuel-cell cars which they believe to be the future. 

Your point ",they are not going to cannibalise their conventional car sales by competing with Tesla on pricing" is absolutely true. For years the ICE manufactures have had zero interest in EV's. Why would they. All it would do is take market share from their own ICE sales. And that is the important thing to let sink in.  Tesla is not in competition with any other EV manufacturer or so called Tesla Killers.  A term made up to distract from where the battle is really heading.  Their competition is the ICE market which is 98% of sales today.  When you see a heading that say Tesla has 50% of US EV sales it mean very little. it's only a 2% market today.  What you might not see is the headline that Tesla was the 2nd fastest growing Auto company outright in the US market in 2019. (Tata was the biggest by the way). Tesla beat the socks off ICE BMW, Mercedes, Audi ect. 

" Ultimately they have to win against the big car companies that have a long history of producing very complicated products"   Again true, and again a positive for Tesla. A ICE engin has 2000 moving parts, an EV drivetrain ... 20.  A standard car has about 3km of wires in it. A  tesla M3 has 1.5km.  The new Tesla MY will have 100m. It will also be possible to fit it with a robot.  So in 100 years of the Auto industry they love producing "Complicated products".  In  tesla's world that does not exist. If it does they fix it. 

I could carry on but this is about investments. The points above are just a few of the reasons why Tesla fears no one and why the talk of them been killed off when the big guys enter the arena is just ICE propaganda. Ignore most of what you see in the headlines. Tesla pays zero for advertising. Oil keeps many mags and papers going with sponsorship and adds. They are never going to bite the hand that feeds them.


----------



## joe sod (17 Jan 2020)

James Kirk said:


> Joe. can i just say a few things on this. Toyota have so far made no effort to produce any full EV. They say they will in 2025. However they are investing the bulk of R&D in hydrogen fuel-cell cars which they believe to be the future.



But maybe Toyota will be right, it is a very difficult physical and technological problem to store that much energy in a battery, maybe tesla will reach the limit of how far they can travel in that direction especially when they don't have unlimited capital.
Surely it is the case that Toyota and others would have already looked into this. It is probably a much easier route technically to go the electric car route which is why a start up like tesla have gone this way. However you reach the limits of battery storage and then it is very difficult to increase that, you come up against physical barriers. Toyota have chosen the more difficult path initially in going the hydrogen route, but they will not reach any limits on energy storage as hydrogen is the ultimate  in energy storage even better than petroleum.
Electric batteries will never be able to power heavy construction equipment, ships or aeroplanes, therefore Toyota are probably playing the long game.
If this technology was easy the big automotive companies would already have mastered it, as I explained already it is a completely different game to developing software or consumer apps, a much greater degree of difficulty.


----------



## James Kirk (21 Jan 2020)

joe sod said:


> But maybe Toyota will be right, it is a very difficult physical and technological problem to store that much energy in a battery,  Toyota have chosen the more difficult path initially in going the hydrogen route, but they will not reach any limits on energy storage as hydrogen is the ultimate  in energy storage even better than petroleum.



Have a look at this Joe.  EV v Fuelcell.









						The Truth about Hydrogen
					

Get 2 months of Skillshare for FREE using this link: https://skl.sh/realengineering13Errors: I made an off hand comment about adding efficiencies in the vide...




					www.youtube.com


----------



## joe sod (21 Jan 2020)

James Kirk said:


> Have a look at this Joe.  EV v Fuelcell.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 yes its a very good analysis of the benefits of both technologies. Electric wins with regards to cost of producing it but loses with regard to weight and energy density . Therefore to have a comprehensive replacement for petroleum you need both. In a nutshell it explains why technology has not been able to replace petroleum , and electric cars have not achieved this because of the limitations of electric batteries as very well explained above. 
I also do not believe the cost of electricity energy units vis a vis hydrogen is correct, because electricity is still cheap because it is by and large still produced from fossil fuels.  The cost of the massive infrastructure  needed to upgrade the electricity network to cope with big increases in electric cars is also not included in the unit electricity cost. If you look at your ESB bill much of the cost is public service levy and connection fee ,this will increase dramatically to pay for infrastructure in the future.


----------



## James Kirk (22 Jan 2020)

joe sod said:


> yes its a very good analysis of the benefits of both technologies. Electric wins with regards to cost of producing it but loses with regard to weight and energy density . Therefore to have a comprehensive replacement for petroleum you need both. In a nutshell it explains why technology has not been able to replace petroleum.



Today a Tesla battery has an energy density of about 265Wh/kg. Up until now that density has been improved by 5% a year.  Musk has been hinting that they now have a break through that will mark a big jump in battery density. He did a very long podcast last week and stressed the importance of the acquisition of Maxwell Technologies last year.  Maxwell have been experimenting with Dry Battery Electroide technology. They claimed last night that they have cracked it and believe they can produce a battery with 300Wh/kg with a clear path to 500Wh/kg.  If that's true then it will mark a huge jump in Tesla battery advantage over any competition. Musk did explain what the Dry Battery Electroide technology is, but to be honest it's a long way above by understanding. However I do understand what it will mean for Tesla.  It's cheaper, increases distance, decreases charge time, cobalt free and increases battery life X2.  Not only is it an advantage for cars but for the energy business as well.


----------



## PGF2016 (22 Jan 2020)

James Kirk said:


> Today a Tesla battery has an energy density of about 265Wh/kg. Up until now that density has been improved by 5% a year.  Musk has been hinting that they now have a break through that will mark a big jump in battery density. He did a very long podcast last week and stressed the importance of the acquisition of Maxwell Technologies last year.  Maxwell have been experimenting with Dry Battery Electroide technology. They claimed last night that they have cracked it and believe they can produce a battery with 300Wh/kg with a clear path to 500Wh/kg.  If that's true then it will mark a huge jump in Tesla battery advantage over any competition. Musk did explain what the Dry Battery Electroide technology is, but to be honest it's a long way above by understanding. However I do understand what it will mean for Tesla.  It's cheaper, increases distance, decreases charge time, cobalt free and increases battery life X2.  Not only is it an advantage for cars but for the energy business as well.


Can you share the podcast?


----------



## jhegarty (22 Jan 2020)

PGF2016 said:


> Can you share the podcast?











						Third Row Tesla Podcast – Elon's Story – Part 1
					

Elon Musk is known for many different things – however, not many people seem to know a lot about Elon as a person, what led to him putting everything on the ...




					www.youtube.com
				




Battery bit starts about 28 minutes in.

TLDR : He initially looked at high capacity capacitors, but now thinks they are unnecessary due to dry cells and other stuff he can't talk about until battery investor day.


----------



## James Kirk (22 Jan 2020)

This is the claim made by  Maxwell Technologies.



			https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EO12QXHVUAUFHeb?format=jpg&name=small


----------



## joe sod (22 Jan 2020)

James Kirk said:


> They claimed last night that they have cracked it and believe they can produce a battery with 300Wh/kg with a clear path to 500Wh/kg. If that's true then it will mark a huge jump in Tesla battery advantage over any competition.



We will see, it seems to be very fast progress and he seems to want to get any sort of news out to the market before they can actually get it into production. The market clearly loves Tesla at the moment therefore any bit of information is swallowed hook line and sinker. There is a plethora of investors out there that want to believe in this and that will buy into it. As others have said previously it is not a good stock to be shorting in this mania.


----------



## joe sod (22 Jan 2020)

James Kirk said:


> They claimed last night that they have cracked it and believe they can produce a battery with 300Wh/kg


 
Just to put this in context and compare this with petroleum, 300Wh/kg is 300 W delivered for 1 hour stored in 1 kg of battery, to convert this to joules for the total energy stored it is (300*3600) = 1.08 MJ of energy.
Now a kg of petrol has 46 MJ of energy per kg.

That is 1 MJ for a battery  versus 46 MJ for petroleum, even after Musks supposed breakthrough.
That shows the gargantuan gap between electric batteries and petroleum that Musk will never be able to leap because of the limits of physics.
Energy is not the same as computer power , there are no 10x gains  in energy technology like there were for computers. Even BIll Gates has been saying this. Even if there is a big switch to electric cars it will barely put a dent in the use of hydrocarbons.


----------



## Thargor (22 Jan 2020)

joe sod said:


> Just to put this in context and compare this with petroleum, 300Wh/kg is 300 W delivered for 1 hour stored in 1 kg of battery, to convert this to joules for the total energy stored it is (300*3600) = 1.08 MJ of energy.
> Now a kg of petrol has 46 MJ of energy per kg.
> 
> That is 1 MJ for a battery  versus 46 MJ for petroleum, even after Musks supposed breakthrough.
> ...


Batteries dont need to get anywhere near the energy density of fossil fuels, a Gen 1 Nissan Leaf would suit 99% of commuters on the road every morning (pulled that figure out of my ass but its the vast majority). A bit of investment in charging infrastructure, fast chargers, and stick with the ~5% annual improvement in battery tech and ICE will have had its day, it already has tbh, nobody who owns an electric wants to go back.


----------



## James Kirk (22 Jan 2020)

joe sod said:


> Just to put this in context and compare this with petroleum, 300Wh/kg is 300 W delivered for 1 hour stored in 1 kg of battery, to convert this to joules for the total energy stored it is (300*3600) = 1.08 MJ of energy.
> Now a kg of petrol has 46 MJ of energy per kg.
> 
> That is 1 MJ for a battery  versus 46 MJ for petroleum, even after Musks supposed breakthrough.
> ...



That calculation is not relevant Joe.  What is relevant at this moment in history is that a traveling EV = zero Co2(or close to it)   while a petrol car = 8800 grams of Co2 per gallon of petrol or 10,000 grams of co2 per gallon of diesel burned       If an EV car can travel say 700 miles on a charge and cost the same as an ICE car then the energy per kg won't be important.  If the EV  drive train can do 500,000 to 1,000,000,000 miles in it's life with minimal servicing thats even better.   And I haven't even mentioned the difference in cost per mile traveled.


----------



## joe sod (22 Jan 2020)

James Kirk said:


> What is relevant at this moment in history is that a traveling EV = zero Co2(or close to it) while a petrol car = 8800 grams of Co2 per gallon of petrol


 
That is not correct and is not comparing like with like, to produce 1kWh of electricity emits 0.62 kg of CO2
An electric vehicle consumes 20kWh per 100km
A petrol car consumes 6L of fuel per 100 km           approximately 
There is 2,3kg of CO2 in 1L of petrol

so 100km drive in a petrol car emits 13.8kg of CO2 (  6 x 2.3 )
and 100km drive in an electric car emits 12.4kg of CO2 ( 20 x 0.62 )

So they both emit virtually the same CO2 by driving when you take into account the CO2 emitted in generating the electricity.
Of course the CO2 produced in electricity generation is never taken into consideration which is completely dishonest. We are never getting to 100% renewables in electricity generation, we wont even get to 50%. So electric cars will still be contributing to substantial CO2 emmissions if it is adopted.


----------



## MOB (22 Jan 2020)

joe sod said:


> That is 1 MJ for a battery  versus 46 MJ for petroleum, even after Musks supposed breakthrough.
> That shows the gargantuan gap between electric batteries and petroleum that Musk will never be able to leap because of the limits of physics.



Assuming those figures are accurate - are they meaningful?

Yes the energy storage element of an EV is less compact than that of a hydrocarbon vehicle.  
But how does (Battery+Electric Motor) compare to (petrol tank+Gearbox+Engine)?  Is that not closer to the correct comparison?

Yes, there may be a huge electrical infrastructure development needed.
But once you have it, and as you increase your use of renewables, isn't the nett effect going to be to reduce the pollution costs to society from an oil based system?   It might be a long way down the road, but is it not coming?


----------



## Thargor (22 Jan 2020)

joe sod said:


> That is not correct and is not comparing like with like, to produce 1kWh of electricity emits 0.62 kg of CO2
> An electric vehicle consumes 20kWh per 100km
> A petrol car consumes 6L of fuel per 100 km           approximately
> There is 2,3kg of CO2 in 1L of petrol
> ...


Renewables and low CO2 options like new nuclear reactors will gain more and more share in the energy mix, its inevitable, it wont be perfect but dont let perfect be the enemy of good, it will be way better than fossil fuels anyway, in economic as well as environmental terms.


----------



## jhegarty (23 Jan 2020)

joe sod said:


> That is not correct and is not comparing like with like, to produce 1kWh of electricity emits 0.62 kg of CO2
> An electric vehicle consumes 20kWh per 100km
> A petrol car consumes 6L of fuel per 100 km           approximately
> There is 2,3kg of CO2 in 1L of petrol
> ...



You using old figures there.  By 2018 average gCO2/kWh was 291g (and should have dropped further since).

Source : 

So the 20 kWh hour car will take 5.8 kg , not 12.4 kg.


I also understand (subject to correction on this) that the 2.3 kg in Petrol is only the actual c02 in the fuel.  It doesn't take account of energy used to move it from the middle east to Whitegate , refine it and move it to your local pertrol station.


----------



## joe sod (23 Jan 2020)

jhegarty said:


> You using old figures there. By 2018 average gCO2/kWh was 291g (and should have dropped further since).



Seems a bit low seen as the average for the EU is now just under 0.4kgCo2/kWh, in any case the EU figure is more relevant as ireland is a tiny energy market, so is irrelevant in comparing electric to petrol cars.
Taking EU figures then the CO2 emmitted from an electric car to drive a 100km reduced by 30% to 8kg rather than 12.4Kg, I concede

The point is that alot of CO2 is released to generate electricity and electric cars are not zero emmissions, currently they are at 66% of petrol in CO2 emissions in the EU. The only realistic way for them to get that down substantially is increased nuclear energy. Its also another reason to disregard the irish energy figures because we dont use nuclear energy, and we dont have heavy industry, we wont be manufacturing those cars. Germany is now much dirtier than France in CO2 emissions since they fazed out nuclear energy and by a long shot. A big industrialized country like Germany cannot get down to zero emissions using renewables, they need an awful lot of energy to produce those electric cars.


----------



## EmmDee (23 Jan 2020)

joe sod said:


> That is not correct and is not comparing like with like, to produce 1kWh of electricity emits 0.62 kg of CO2
> An electric vehicle consumes 20kWh per 100km
> A petrol car consumes 6L of fuel per 100 km           approximately
> There is 2,3kg of CO2 in 1L of petrol
> ...



The direction of travel in electricity generation is away from fossil fuels (and accelerating). So while the calculation may be correct, it should be different within a number of years.


----------



## joe sod (23 Jan 2020)

EmmDee said:


> The direction of travel in electricity generation is away from fossil fuels (and accelerating). So while the calculation may be correct, it should be different within a number of years.



Yes but it has been going in that direction for a long time, so yes there will be less energy produced from fossil fuels as a proportion however the overall demand for energy is rising much faster than the conversion to "clean" alternatives. Thats why the global consumption of hydrocarbons is still rising, it only fell in 2008/9 with the global financial crisis.
As I explained above the technological advances in energy  are not the same as in computing power or communications , there are no 10x advances with energy because of the laws of physics, no technological advancement can increase the amount of light falling on a solar panel or the wind passing a wind turbine, so you cannot increase the energy from a solar panel by 10x like you can with computing power. Not alot of people understand this because they think all technology is the same. 
That is why Elon Musk was celebrating the fact that he had increased the capacity of his batteries by 10% and this was a major breakthrough. However in the 70s and 80s the computing power of microchips was increasing by 1000% , that advancement is not available with energy technology, Period


----------



## James Kirk (23 Jan 2020)

The problem with the energy and auto industries has been the lack of incentive to change. A few big companies hold all the cards and were very happy to maintain the status quo. When Elon came along they did everything in their power to stop him. The amount of bs they spread about tesla and Musk is unbelievable and has been responsible for a lot of shorts been sucked into believing Tesla was a fake and was destined to go bust.
It's only in the last 10 years that any companies have really invested cash or time into disrupting  the 100 years of the status quo. So if after just 10 years Tesla are about to make 15% jump in battery density instead of the annual 5% that would be big progress. If Maxwell are proven to be right and do have a path to 500Wh/kg battery then that could be a 66% jump by 2022. What I'm trying to say is that it's a bit early to apply the laws of physics just yet. I'm sure when the lad that was walking heard of the bike's invention he thought that the laws of physics meant that speed would always be directly related to the strength in his legs. A 2000cc Kawasaki would have been beyond his imagination. 

Two quick observations. Joe you mentioned in a post that "Electric batteries will never be able to power aeroplanes "  That's not strictly true.  Tesla already have a plane design ready to go.  The limiting factor has been battery density. Seemingly the magic number is 400Wh/kg.  At 5% improvments a year the likely date for progress on it was 2028. That could be about to change. 

Secondly, battery storage technology advancements will mean that the wind will not always need to blow or the sun to shine for wind and solar to produce power for the grid. Tesla will make as much or more from energy as cars in the future. It the Tesla plan continues to go to plan, Zero emission cars will be manufactured in a zero emissions factory, delivered by zero emission trucks, and charged by zero emission energy.


----------



## joe sod (23 Jan 2020)

@James Kirk , Ive probably been guilty of taking this thread off topic by discussing the merits of electric cars rather whether shorting Tesla is a good or bad thing. Here is a good synopsis of the shortcomings of batteries, renewable energy etc written by an MIT technologist and engineer Mark P Mills, its written in plain english not techno jargon so is easy to understand if you are interested





__





						41 Inconvenient Truths on the "New Energy Economy" | Mark P.  Mills
					

Storing the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil, which weighs 300 pounds, requires 20,000 pounds of Tesla batteries ($200,000 worth).



					fee.org
				




The topic of this thread whether it is correct to short Tesla, obviously not because the market loves it.
But that does not mean that Tesla will put oil companies out of business with the "green revolution", we will be consuming alot more hydrocarbons in 2040 than we are doing today. Hopefully you will understand by reading the above.


----------



## joe sod (2 Feb 2020)

Even if there is a big switch to electric vehicles there will not be a reduction in the use of fossil fuels, demand will continue to increase. The utility companies will not invest money now to build big power stations anymore, maybe just some gas plants. They will invest large sums on wind and solar farms, however there will still be a large gap between supply and demand because of intermittentcy of renewable sources but also because the total demand will increase alot.  So what will this gap be replaced with, you guessed it, industrial generators. So we will end up with an inferior electricity grid like africa and india consisting of loads of industrial generators . Industrial generators are very inefficient and can only burn highly refined fuel like diesel oil. Burning diesel in generators will be alot more expensive than conventional oil or coal fired power stations.


----------



## Zenith63 (3 Feb 2020)

joe sod said:


> Here is a good synopsis of the shortcomings of batteries, renewable energy etc written by an MIT technologist and engineer Mark P Mills, its written in plain english not techno jargon so is easy to understand if you are interested
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Worth noting that the Manhattan Institute, of which Mark Mills is a Senior Fellow, was included in a list of 32 organisations denounced by US Senators in 2016 for spreading climate change denial and having links to fossil fuel interests.  fee.org is a partner of the Charles Koch Institute and funded by the Koch brothers, who are notoriously pro-fossil fuels and anti climate science.  The article is just a list of statements that may be factually accurate, but are mostly irrelevant and designed to mislead readers in a pretty obvious direction.


----------



## Zenith63 (3 Feb 2020)

joe sod said:


> The point is that alot of CO2 is released to generate electricity and electric cars are not zero emmissions


The EPA recently recommended that you carry your children if walking near busy roads in Ireland to keep them a little further from the exhausts of cars - which I find an astounding thing for a government organisation to be saying and for there to be so little reaction.  The reality is that just as there are much worse things coming out of cigarettes than nicotine, CO2 is just one problem with burning fossil fuels.  We're now realising that NOx and particulate matter emissions are killing tens of thousands of people early and causing all sorts of illnesses (asthma etc) and electric vehicles reduce these emissions to zero in the case of NOx and vastly reduced in the case of particulate matter.  These emissions are highly localised, so even if you emit them from a power station down the country away from people it has a hugely beneficial effect on the population.


----------



## notthatkeen (3 Feb 2020)

Zenith63 said:


> Worth noting that the Manhattan Institute, of which Mark Mills is a Senior Fellow



Thanks for catching this (and the Koch brother angle). Referring to the Manhattan Institute as MIT is misleading at best.


----------



## joe sod (3 Feb 2020)

Zenith63 said:


> Worth noting that the Manhattan Institute, of which Mark Mills is a Senior Fellow, was included in a list of 32 organisations denounced by US Senators in 2016 for spreading climate change denial and having links to fossil fuel interests.



but its also the case that companies behind the renewable energy industries, governments, billionaires like George Soros and others are funding the "climate change" agenda and publicity. There is an awful lot more money funding that side and a full balanced debate is not been given to the public. Regardless of what you think of the mesengers Mark Mills is a senior Physicist and technologist, therefore the "41 inconvenient truths" are correct. I think its a case of if you dont like the message ,shoot the messenger


----------



## joe sod (19 Apr 2021)

I see a bit of controversy over the safety of tesla cars and the batteries. A tesla car crashed in Texas killing 2 people, there was no one in the drivers seat, the suspicion is they were using the auto pilot feature inappropriately in that there should always be someone in the drivers seat. However the main issue is the fire hazard associated with the batteries, the fire was so intense it took a 100000 litres of water to finally extinguish the fire. I think lithium as well as being rare is also a highly flammable element.


----------



## Zenith63 (19 Apr 2021)

joe sod said:


> there should always be someone in the drivers seat.


Sage advice for any vehicle in-fairness, Tesla or not.

There's no doubt fires in electric vehicles are fairly intense, the good news is they're not at all common and will become even so as battery technology improves further.  For reference Tesla's data shows 5 fires for every billion miles traveled in an EV, compared to 55 per billion miles travelled in petrol/diesel cars, both small numbers.


----------



## PGF2016 (19 Apr 2021)

joe sod said:


> I see a bit of controversy over the safety of tesla cars and the batteries. A tesla car crashed in Texas killing 2 people, there was no one in the drivers seat, the suspicion is they were using the auto pilot feature inappropriately in that there should always be someone in the drivers seat. However the main issue is the fire hazard associated with the batteries, the fire was so intense it took a 100000 litres of water to finally extinguish the fire. I think lithium as well as being rare is also a highly flammable element.


I know the conversation is about Tesla but any car that is used in an inappropriate manner is potentially unsafe. This is not a Tesla specific problem. Lithium isn't only used in Tesla cars. Teslas do well in the NCAP safety tests due to their technology.

Is the controversy due to an actual issue with Teslas or just clickbait because the story is about Tesla? Would it get the same response if it was about a Hyundai Kona? 

Not a fan boy or shareholder.


----------



## EmmDee (19 Apr 2021)

joe sod said:


> I see a bit of controversy over the safety of tesla cars and the batteries. A tesla car crashed in Texas killing 2 people, there was no one in the drivers seat, the suspicion is they were using the auto pilot feature inappropriately in that there should always be someone in the drivers seat. However the main issue is the fire hazard associated with the batteries, the fire was so intense it took a 100000 litres of water to finally extinguish the fire. I think lithium as well as being rare is also a highly flammable element.



As I understand it, the problem was that they were using water. I think lithium ion fires creates oxygen so water isn't the appropriate suppressant.

At least that's what I picked up from a quick discussion about the case


----------



## joe sod (19 Apr 2021)

EmmDee said:


> As I understand it, the problem was that they were using water. I think lithium ion fires creates oxygen so water isn't the appropriate suppressant.
> 
> At least that's what I picked up from a quick discussion about the case


Yes but that raises an even bigger issue, maybe the fire services are not equipped to deal with electric car fires if they cant use water. This is the scenario they get a call about a "car fire" thats it if a car is on fire how is anybody to know it is an electric car its just a car on fire. If it is the case that every fire engine needs to be equipped with specialised fire extinguishing equipment , who will pay for that?, maybe a levy on the purchase of electric cars for this.


----------



## Zenith63 (19 Apr 2021)

joe sod said:


> Yes but that raises an even bigger issue, maybe the fire services are not equipped to deal with electric car fires if they cant use water. This is the scenario they get a call about a "car fire" thats it if a car is on fire how is anybody to know it is an electric car its just a car on fire. If it is the case that every fire engine needs to be equipped with specialised fire extinguishing equipment , who will pay for that?, maybe a levy on the purchase of electric cars for this.



Fortunately not an issue. Though additional water requirements are common -



> *Hybrid and EV fires do not require special equipment for fire suppression / extinguishment.*
> No data was collected to alter this recommendation
> 
> *Use water or other standard agents for vehicle fires.*
> No data was collected to alter this recommendation. All suppression tests were sufficiently suppressed with water applied with standard hose lines and nozzles



From the 233 page report “Best Practices for Emergency Response to Incidents Involving Electric Vehicles Battery Hazards: A Report on Full-Scale Testing Results” from the US Department of Energy



			https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/02/f8/final_report_nfpa.pdf


----------

