What ever happened to THOROUGH, COMPREHENSIVE testing before implementation of a new product that could be harmful to people? That occurs in pharma, and it should occur in every other instance where the public is exposed to a potentially dangerous new product or service.
The article describes what SHOULD HAVE occurred, but, to date, hasn’t occurred. Idiots who want to rush into autonomous vehicles WITHOUT thorough safety testing have to shoulder …. er, bear… most of the blame for several deaths, including pedestrians and bicyclists.
I know there are a few other types of large capacity batteries, including vanadium ion, which are less fire-prone and can actually be fire retardant. I wonder what the drawbacks of those technologies are when compared to the more traditional lithium ion.
Good article. This is an insurance issue of growing importance. The battery industry understandably wants to squeeze in more energy for the volume/weight. The more stored energy however that is released in a confined space in an uncontrolled way resulting from mechanical derangement by car accident, manufacturing defect, internal short circuit, exposure to fire, etc., the more catastrophic the results of meltdown. Helping to minimise this risk and to develop techniques for handling battery meltdowns should be given high priority by insurers.
This is why I get mad when I read about Jeremy Rifkin and his Third Industrial Revolution.
Back in the 1980’s,you couldn’t pick up a newspaper or magazine without reading about
him attacking Biotechnology.He filed a ton of lawsuits against it.His main complaint was that
scientists were rushing to use this technology without having a formal discussion on it’s
safety and impact on society and the enviorment.he raised concerns and issues and warned
of unforeseen consequences.But now,with his Third Industrial Revolution,Rifin’s doing the
exact opposite.He’s getting people all excited and anxious to make the switch to renewable
energy.The problem here is that Rifkin’s not raising concerns and issues with renewable
energy like he did with Biotechnology.He’s not questioning the cost,safety and reliability of
hydrogen and battery storage systems or the toxic materials and chemicals that are used
in the manufacturing of solar panels,not to mention the impact solar panels and wind generators will have on society and the enviorment.
What ever happened to THOROUGH, COMPREHENSIVE testing before implementation of a new product that could be harmful to people? That occurs in pharma, and it should occur in every other instance where the public is exposed to a potentially dangerous new product or service.
Same is true for Autonomous cars. They have proven to be unsafe and have not been thoroughly tested.
I’m confused, from the article that seems to be exactly what they are describing. Cautious adoption with ongoing research into safety.
The article describes what SHOULD HAVE occurred, but, to date, hasn’t occurred. Idiots who want to rush into autonomous vehicles WITHOUT thorough safety testing have to shoulder …. er, bear… most of the blame for several deaths, including pedestrians and bicyclists.
I know there are a few other types of large capacity batteries, including vanadium ion, which are less fire-prone and can actually be fire retardant. I wonder what the drawbacks of those technologies are when compared to the more traditional lithium ion.
Higher cost, so vehicle makers take the cheaper rather than safer approach.
Good article. This is an insurance issue of growing importance. The battery industry understandably wants to squeeze in more energy for the volume/weight. The more stored energy however that is released in a confined space in an uncontrolled way resulting from mechanical derangement by car accident, manufacturing defect, internal short circuit, exposure to fire, etc., the more catastrophic the results of meltdown. Helping to minimise this risk and to develop techniques for handling battery meltdowns should be given high priority by insurers.
This is why I get mad when I read about Jeremy Rifkin and his Third Industrial Revolution.
Back in the 1980’s,you couldn’t pick up a newspaper or magazine without reading about
him attacking Biotechnology.He filed a ton of lawsuits against it.His main complaint was that
scientists were rushing to use this technology without having a formal discussion on it’s
safety and impact on society and the enviorment.he raised concerns and issues and warned
of unforeseen consequences.But now,with his Third Industrial Revolution,Rifin’s doing the
exact opposite.He’s getting people all excited and anxious to make the switch to renewable
energy.The problem here is that Rifkin’s not raising concerns and issues with renewable
energy like he did with Biotechnology.He’s not questioning the cost,safety and reliability of
hydrogen and battery storage systems or the toxic materials and chemicals that are used
in the manufacturing of solar panels,not to mention the impact solar panels and wind generators will have on society and the enviorment.