What a mess.

Quote:

---

According to the California Energy Commission, more than 99,000 zero-emission vehicles were sold in Los Angeles County in 2024 alone, including battery electric, plug-in hybrid and fuel cell electric vehicles.

The Tesla models Y, 3 and Cybertruck were the top three selling zero-emission models sold in Los Angeles County last year, according to the commission's online tally.

---

Los Angeles fire cleanup complicated by 'unprecedented' number of EVs with combustible lithium-ion batterieshttps://t.co/sHcC9ay3q7
But....But....But.... they are green, they are the future!😡

— Truckster1 🇺🇸❌ (@truckster1) January 31, 2025

🚨 | California: Lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles are one of the biggest hazards in the post-fire cleanup https://t.co/ATIa4B2Zah

— VOZ (@Voz_US) January 27, 2025

Quote:

---

In communities such as Pacific Palisades (among the hardest hit in the fires), electric car sales surpassed 5,500 units since 2010. Adam VanGerpen, a Los Angeles Fire Department official, stated, "This area has many more electric vehicles than other parts of the state, which complicates the cleanup process."

---

This is really pretty funny to me though;

Quote:

---

All new homes built in California since Jan. 1, 2020, are required to have solar panels, which also require the installation of lithium-ion batteries.
Pacific Palisades Charter High School, which was destroyed in the fire, was in the process of adding solar panels to its buildings before the disaster.

---

Great job, commie voters.

WARNING
California causes cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

www.P65Warnings.ca.gov

5,500 EVs.

Assuming all Model 3's the average cells per EV is about 3,000 equivalent to 16,500,000 21mm x 70mm cylinders.

Model S and Model X use about 18,500 cells that are double A sized. If all 5,500 EVs are those types of vehicles then 101,750,000 cells.

Yep. Burned EVs and their batteries are a significant risk. Reporter has a very valid point. Ignore the hand waving by the EV proponents.

Just another reason to buy an ev


Every ev is dog**** that's also terrible for the environment

Average Joe said:

---

This is much ado about nothing. Sure, there is more hazardous waste than there would be if EV's weren't a thing, but vehicles account for a very small portion of the hazardous waste they are having to clean up. The typical household will have cleaning supplies, propane tanks, pesticides, fertilizers, chlorine, paint solvents, ammo, car fluids (extra oil, power steering fluid, antifreeze, etc.) and many others that account for FAR more than EV batteries.

Fox News is appealing to their demographic and y'all ate it up.

---

bobbranco said:

---

5,500 EVs.

Assuming all Model 3's the average cells per EV is about 3,000 equivalent to 16,500,000 21mm x 70mm cylinders.

Model S and Model X use about 18,500 cells that are double A sized. If all 5,500 EVs are those types of vehicles then 101,750,000 cells.

Yep. Burned EVs and their batteries are a significant risk. Reporter has a very valid point. Ignore the hand waving by the EV proponents.

---

That's 5500 total in 15 years purchased, not 5500 burned in the fire. We don't have that number. And from what Nortex posted, those batteries in solar homes are much much bigger issue. For the record, solar is dumb.

Yall realize that RATO thrives on arguing and trolling, right?

Apparently not.

Do you have anything of substance to add or a point to make in regard to anything I've posted?

There could be more than 5,500 then. Please stop.

bobbranco said:

---

There could be more than 5,500 then. Please stop.

---

Or way less. We simply do not know. But that's what click bait articles rely on. Alarmist headline then woefully short on information and data.

And it works.

Teslag said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

There could be more than 5,500 then. Please stop.

---

Or way less. We simply do not know. But that's what click bait articles rely on. Alarmist headline then woefully short on information and data.

And it works.

---

Whatever. Your hand waves are hilarious.

Teslag said:

---

Average Joe said:

---

This is much ado about nothing. Sure, there is more hazardous waste than there would be if EV's weren't a thing, but vehicles account for a very small portion of the hazardous waste they are having to clean up. The typical household will have cleaning supplies, propane tanks, pesticides, fertilizers, chlorine, paint solvents, ammo, car fluids (extra oil, power steering fluid, antifreeze, etc.) and many others that account for FAR more than EV batteries.

Fox News is appealing to their demographic and y'all ate it up.

---

---

Which of the bolded items above are known to spontaneously re-ignite & explode as stated in the OP?

Ask not for whom the hand waves, the hand waves for thee.

Where's the hand wave? Nortex article says 5500 since 2010. Just clarifying that we don't have a number that burned in the fire so it's impossible to determine how much of a risk they are without that.

agent-maroon said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Average Joe said:

---

This is much ado about nothing. Sure, there is more hazardous waste than there would be if EV's weren't a thing, but vehicles account for a very small portion of the hazardous waste they are having to clean up. The typical household will have cleaning supplies, propane tanks, pesticides, fertilizers, chlorine, paint solvents, ammo, car fluids (extra oil, power steering fluid, antifreeze, etc.) and many others that account for FAR more than EV batteries.

Fox News is appealing to their demographic and y'all ate it up.

---

---

Which of the bolded items above are known to spontaneously re-ignite & explode as stated in the OP?

Ask not for whom the hand waves, the hand waves for thee.

---

Spontaneous combustion, or combustion at all, was only one concern of the Phase 1 plan by the EPA. They are just as concerned about toxicity of fire remnants as well, in which those additional substances pose a threat. Additionally, even small damaged lithium batteries can kill. Often at a far greater rate than EV batteries since they lack the protection EV's have (as the article notes).

Mr. Fingerbottom said:

---

Just another reason to buy an ev


Every ev is dog**** that's also terrible for the environment

---

I drive a Model Y and I'll tell you it's probably the best $50k car on the road. Definitely not dog ****, that's just a silly emotional point that has no basis in fact. But yeah I wouldn't want to be here if it and/or my house caught fire and I have no doubt this is a significant problem in LA right now. The entire fire is an ecological disaster which is the bigger point and I have no doubt the batteries in these cars are a massive problem for them trying to clean this mess up. Hopefully we learn real lessons about fire safety in our cities so that we don't have these kinds of events again. Nothing is good in this and I am more than willing to believe EV batteries are making the clean up effort worse. I didn't buy mine to be green, I bought it because it's probably the best $50k car on the market.

A worry about EVs!?

Was West Hollywood even impacted?

The article is about scaling the dangers/risks of EV batteries specifically, not the risks of every lithium battery known to exist. If an article was about the dangers of C4 based IEDs, would you counter that Blackcat firecrackers pose risks as well? That's the absurdity of the whataboutism replies on this thread. Again, it's about the scale of the risks, not the existence of a risk.

The click bait article is, but the Phase 1 plan of the EPA that's the basis of the article is concerned about all of it. And she even brings that up in the article. Which you ignored.

Quote:

---

Besides in electric and hybrid vehicles, lithium-ion batteries can be found in personal electronics, vaping devices, power tools and home energy storage systems, which have become increasingly popular during California's power outages.

---

Teslag said:

---

Where's the hand wave? Nortex article says 5500 since 2010. Just clarifying that we don't have a number that burned in the fire so it's impossible to determine how much of a risk they are without that.

---

Stop. Please. Enjoy the sign.

WARNING
EVs cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

www.P65Warnings.ca.gov

bobbranco said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Where's the hand wave? Nortex article says 5500 since 2010. Just clarifying that we don't have a number that burned in the fire so it's impossible to determine how much of a risk they are without that.

---

Stop. Please. Enjoy the sign.

WARNING
EVs cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

www.P65Warnings.ca.gov

---

Are you trying to add something here? That statement doesn't exist anywhere on that site.

bobbranco said:

---

Model S and Model X use about 18,500 cells that are double A sized. If all 5,500 EVs are those types of vehicles then 101,750,000 cells.

---

This is the point. It's like comparing C4 to a firecracker. Or the Tsar Bomba and Fat Man/Little Boy are all nuclear bombs so what's the difference?

Helicopter Ben said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Model S and Model X use about 18,500 cells that are double A sized. If all 5,500 EVs are those types of vehicles then 101,750,000 cells.

---

This is the point. It's like comparing C4 to a firecracker. Or the Tsar Bomba and Fat Man/Little Boy are all nuclear bombs so what's the difference?

---

Not necessarily. A large solar home will have almost as many or more lithium cells than an EV. And it was posted earlier that all new builds in the area required them.

We also have no idea how many of those 5,500 vehicles were burned. Or even still owned since that is based on purchases over 15 years.

BigRobSA said:

---

Wouldn't the homes with EVs have been protected from fire by the rainbows emanating from them?

---

A thick enough smug cloud can protect you from political consequences. Science!

Exactly. It's like a moth rushing madly to die in the flame with this guy. Always.

Do we really have people on this board with brains defects? Asking for a friend

bobbranco said:

---

Exactly. It's like a moth rushing madly to die in the flame with this guy. Always.

---

Same with you.

fullback44 said:

---

Do we really have people on this board with brains defects? Asking for a friend

---

People tend to be drawn to their own biases. That's why click bait articles like the OP's work so well. No one bothered to read beyond the article for verification

Yes. You will retort with not apparent self awareness to how wrong, strange or comical the posts make you into our very own Hank Johnson.

Helicopter Ben said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Model S and Model X use about 18,500 cells that are double A sized. If all 5,500 EVs are those types of vehicles then 101,750,000 cells.

---

This is the point. It's like comparing C4 to a firecracker. Or the Tsar Bomba and Fat Man/Little Boy are all nuclear bombs so what's the difference?

---

Yep. And from DDG assist:

Quote:

---

The median year in which properties in Pacific Palisades were built is 1964. This suggests that many homes in the area are around 60 years old or older.

---

I doubt there were more than a handful of 'new builds' since 2020 in this area, but at the same time the solar adoption rate might be around 10 percent or so as a guess/swag. Responsible people should avoid both EV's and solar power for homes, unless in a rural area where you really do need backup power I would think (desert or mountains usually I have seen some use-cases for the latter that seem logical).

It astonishes me that anyone who cares about the environment can look at any communist regime's environmental record and go "yeah, that's the system we need to emulate to save the Earth!"

Separate from the EVs, the shocking environmental discussion point of the press conference attended by Trump and Mayor Bass was that the EPA or the CA EPA wants to dig out 1'+ of contaminated soil throughout the Palisades.

Teslag said:

---

Helicopter Ben said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Model S and Model X use about 18,500 cells that are double A sized. If all 5,500 EVs are those types of vehicles then 101,750,000 cells.

---

This is the point. It's like comparing C4 to a firecracker. Or the Tsar Bomba and Fat Man/Little Boy are all nuclear bombs so what's the difference?

---

Not necessarily. A large solar home will have almost as many or more lithium cells than an EV. And it was posted earlier that all new builds in the area required them.

We also have no idea how many of those 5,500 vehicles were burned. Or even still owned since that is based on purchases over 15 years.

---

Dude - let this one go. Big lithium ions are more challenging to deal with. If it's just 3 evs and 10 power walls that's still harder to deal with than zero. Recovery workers probably don't find 95% of the small batteries and if they ignite, they burn small. But a burned up EV is a heavy hazard that'll need to be dealt with as unique hazmat. The point is it's an additional challenge. Just one more rock in the pack.

Again, I think that depends on how many burned in the fire. 3 EV's is negligible. 300 isn't. In addition what do you consider "small"? I'd be just as concerned from a safety perspective from some of the other lithium yard equipment. Those pack a lot of power but will be buried more in the rubble. And probably far more of them.

Helicopter Ben said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Model S and Model X use about 18,500 cells that are double A sized. If all 5,500 EVs are those types of vehicles then 101,750,000 cells.

---

This is the point. It's like comparing C4 to a firecracker. Or the Tsar Bomba and Fat Man/Little Boy are all nuclear bombs so what's the difference?

---

That's a good comparison. One Tesla battery is what 1000 iPhones? 10,000? That's the real point. Cars are big and a pain in a situation like this anyway simply due to their mass. Now add in a battery that's hazardous waste and they're twice the problem. To argue otherwise seems silly to me. I love my Tesla but they aren't perfect by any means. Like Sowell says there are no solutions only trade offs. It's a very good car and the convenience of home charging really is significant over time vs going to the gas station but if your city burns to the ground because Democrats they're going to be a pain in the ass. Not sure why we're debating this one.

I'll answer my own question… yes we do