TESLA cars bursting into flames as batteries turn into potential DEATHCAR of lithium explosive & deadly vapors, as predicted: COVER UP.
1 month ago GIZMO READERS 0
Deadly fires. Deadly vapors released by Tesla Fires. Lithium Ion cars burn homes down. Spontaneous Combustions. Overseas workers die from making Tesla batteries. Fisker Cars Lithium Ion Explodes one-after-the-other. Multiple Tesla Fires Unreported. Boeing 787 proves Lithium Ion is unfixable. Where will it end?
Multiple TESLA cars bursting into flames as batteries turn into potential DEATHBED of lithium explosives and brain damaging, cancer causing dust particle combustion clouds, as predicted: Fisker already gone because of vast number of fires. COVER UP. Tesla not reporting all incidents.
According to transportation group investigators: ” the fire immediately filled the cockpit and passenger area of the car with toxic post-combustion lithium particles and plastic fire vapors which are known to cause cancer, lung damage and brain damage.” All this death and destruction so some silicon valley VC’s can get their quick profits at the expense of the lives, safety and homes of the public and workers.
TRADE MEDIA MAGAZINE:
Tesla Motors Inc (NASDAQ:TSLA) Faces Tough Time With Flawed Car Design Models
Dallas, Texas, 10/07/2013 (ustrademedia) – Leading automobile company, Tesla Motors Inc (NASDAQ:TSLA) has been in the news for the wrong reasons because some of its cars were involved in battery fires. Tesla may face some major liabilities, if such accidents occur again. They are mainly happening because of flawed design. The cars were termed as “safest on the road” and it is rather ironical that the cars have been catching fires.
There has been speculation regarding whether Tesla needs to recall the vehicles with flawed design. There are a lot of different factors and parameters that will be analyzed before any such decision will be taken.
It is likely that the improper location of the battery and the poor design that has been used in making the Tesla cars is the cause of such accidents. It is still unknown as to what would be the long term impact of using such cars and it is likely that the federal government will set up a committee for investing the same. This news of fires in automobiles has created a major setback for Tesla and it has the potential to mar the reputation of the company.
The company is not sure about opting for an automobile recall; however should they decide to do so, it is a proof that the company is more bothered about the safety of its users rather than focussing on how it can impact the reputation of the company. If the number of such cases keeps on increasing, Tesla can face an extremely tough time and the right action must be taken to sort out the different problems.
It is up to Tesla to decide the right course of action that must be taken. Despite being such a giant in the field of automobile, the recent news has taken the sheen away from the company and it can have huge repercussion on reputation, sales and overall output as well. Tags: NASDAQ:TSLA, Tesla Motors Inc (NASDAQ:TSLA)
-Sally Murdock: a former newspaper section editor and reporter and is now contributing at UStrademedia. Her work has been published in national business trade magazines, and can be found on wire services, in daily newspapers, in university alumni magazines, on the web, in newsletters.
Elon Musk says his batteries are “safer than gasoline” but he lies!
His batteries explode, burn and give off lethal powder vapors simply by coming in contact with WATER, AIR or CRASHES! (Cuz no cars are ever exposed to those most basic aspects of being a car!)
Musk was offered other safer energy storage systems when the car was designed by Martin Eberhard but Musk turned them down in order to provide kickbacks to investors who also got DOE money for their battery companies, both of which deals the notoriously corrupt Goldman Sachs packaged up. Toyota and ZAP have been selling more electric cars than Tesla ever will and they told Musk not to use those kinds of batteries but he has his kickback deals he wanted to run.
It is Ok to buy a Tesla but it is ESSENTIAL that you live in an area without one single pothole or bump in the road or anything that you might drive over, or water, or air or anybody else that drives a car, IF YOU OWN A TESLA, in order to avoid having yourself, your family, your car and your house not go up in flames and spew dangerous vapors.
UNCOVERED:! Tesla’s own government documents, which Tesla authored, which disclose the horrifying reality of their batteries in Tesla Motors own words:
“”Thermal runaway is of major concern since a single incident can lead to significant property damage and, in some circumstances, bodily harm or loss of life. When a battery undergoes thermal runaway, it typically emits a large quantity of smoke, jets of flaming liquid electrolyte, and sufficient heat to lead to the combustion and destruction of materials in close proximity to the cell. If the cell undergoing thermal runaway is surrounded by one or more additional cells as is typical in a battery pack, then a single thermal runaway event can quickly lead to the thermal runaway of multiple cells which, in turn, can lead to much more extensive collateral damage. Regardless of whether a single cell or multiple cells are undergoing this phenomenon, if the initial fire is not extinguished immediately, subsequent fires may be caused that dramatically expand the degree of property damage. For example, the thermal runaway of a battery within an unattended laptop will likely result in not only the destruction of the laptop, but also at least partial destruction of its surroundings, e.g., home, office, car, laboratory, etc. If the laptop is on-board an aircraft, for example within the cargo hold or a luggage compartment, the ensuing smoke and fire may lead to an emergency landing or, under more dire conditions, a crash landing. Similarly, the thermal runaway of one or more batteries within the battery pack of a hybrid or electric vehicle may destroy not only the car, but may lead to a car wreck if the car is being driven or the destruction of its surroundings if the car is parked.
-Tesla Motors, Filed. U.S. Patent Office””
Tesla batteries combined with fire and tesla plastics = slow death sentence.
When the lithium ion batteries catch on fire they set the rest of the car on fire. When the batteries are on fire they release deadly chemicals all by themselves. When the Tesla batteries AND the Tesla car are on fire they release a vast deadly cocktail of chemicals that instantly invade your body via your lungs, skin, hair, tear ducts and stay in your clothes. You, your baby in the back seat, nearby observers, first responders and everybody nearby are instantly toxified with a time bomb of poison that make take years to kill you or destroy your health but they will.
Do you enjoy breathing N-methyl pyrrolidinone, ethylene carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, cyanide, and biphenyl and having your brain cells eaten away? Ask Elon Musk on live TV to WARRANT that a burning Tesla does not instantly releases severely toxic chemical vapors! He won’t say it because he knows that the car is a deadly design.
At the Tesla Factory in Fremont California, Tesla assembles and tests in battery packs, which cover the entire floor of the passenger section, in a military-class ballistic “BLAST CHAMBER” as shown in photos at:
Tesla had previous published requests for patents, now uncovered and published publicly, which state that Tesla felt its batteries had a severe explosion risk and a suspected ability to burn your home down. In spite of Telsa’s knowledge of this hazard, it never adequately disclosed this to buyers.
Firefighters have now confirmed that the Tesla SIMPLY HIT A BUMP IN THE ROAD and the deadly LITHIUM ION Batteries in the TESLA exploded into flames, then, when firefighters tried to put out the fire, the lithium ion batteries which explode in water, blew up some more as the water turned them into a deadly inferno which melted the very metal of the car, as they did with millions of dollars of Fisker cars.
It has been charged that Tesla bribed consumer reporting officials to get their “high safety rating” when Boeing Jets had already proven that the batteries that Tesla uses make Tesla’s deathtraps waiting to happen.
Share this story with this link: http://wp.me/p2BJXK-b2
Watch this movie, one of many of Tesla Cars On Fire:
Many news articles such as:
…pointed out that Tesla batteries are warned to explode in Tesla’s own patent filings, FAA investigations, university studies and more.
Tesla COVERING UP regular fires with its cars. Even fires breakout with it’s batteries at it’s own factory:
Video of Model S on fire takes down Tesla stock
October 2, 2013, 4:27 PM
Tesla Motors Inc. TSLA shares tanked after a video of a Model S on fire circulated on the web, prompting the electric car company to move quickly to douse the flames of bad publicity.
Elizabeth Jarvis-Shean, director of global communications at Tesla, confirmed that the vehicle engulfed in flames was indeed a Tesla but stressed that the driver walked away without injuries.
Tesla Issues Statement On Fiery Car Crash That Caused The Stock To Tank
Mamta Badkar Oct. 2, 2013,
Aj Gill via YouTube
Tesla’s stock was down over 7% to a low of $175.40 today, but pared some of its losses to close down 6.24% at$180.95.
It appears that shares began to tumble in the last half hour on reports that a Tesla Model S car caught fire on Washington State Route 167.
Some speculated that the video highlights problems with the car’s battery. Though others rushed to point out that the battery is located in the back of the car.
Here is yet ANOTHER Tesla fire danger, Tesla has publicly stated they have had no fire incidents but the many incidents shown on this page, all different incidents, prove that is a lie:
Engineer Mark Schrader calls Tesla: “Liars”. Challenges them to live debate on CNN.
Schrader charges that “Tesla knew that Fisker Lithium Ion batteries were spontaneously exploding and nearly always explode when they get wet and that Tesla batteries explode too when wet or damaged in a wreck, releasing deadly toxic materials during combustion or explosion.” Schrader shows that Tesla filed patents, in Tesla’s own name, stating as fact that their batteries could explode with devastating results.
Scrader shows extensive U.S. Department of Energy tests and studies from 5 different DOE national labs which clearly show the toxic, explosive, water-exploding, crash-exploding nature of the particular size, type and use of Lithium Ion batteries in a vehicle traveling more than 2 miles an hour: Deadly consequences were known, and documented before Tesla even got funding.
Mr. Schrader says “Tesla has been using every spin technique in the book and is constantly changing their story on what is happening but the bottom line is: they lied to the public and the stock “analysts”, who are helping them break SEC laws, are telling felony-grade lies too.” Schrader notes that “even though Tesla has had multiple recalls and other fire-on-board incidents, and that Tesla knew of these dangers, they kept selling themselves the batteries because their investors have kickback schemes in the associated battery business.”
THE QUESTIONS ELON MUSK REFUSES TO ANSWER ON LIVE TV-
Some of Schrader’s questions for CNN to ask Tesla during the debate:
“1. How many customers have ever been in a wreck in a Tesla?
2. How many of those cars show burn damage?
3. Was there ever a fire at any of the Tesla plants? How many fires?
4. Why does your patent say your battery’s can cause death and the destruction of a family home yet you still sell them?
5. Why are your batteries assembled and tested in a military grade blast chamber in Fremont?
6. What happens to any of your employees who inhales lithium ion powder? How does your insurance cover them? When factory workers assemble the batteries from raw materials, what insurance covers them? Can these batteries be built from the ground up in California or is that still ILLEGAL because of how toxic they are? These batteries are not out-sourced to China (where you can kill factory workers in the factory process) are they?
7. What happens to any of your customers or fire fighters that inhale lithium ion powder or burning powder combined with burning plastic and aluminum residue? How does your insurance cover them?
8. Did you have any movies or technical white papers about lithium ion battery danger that you viewed prior to applying for taxpayer funding?
9. Which of your investors have a business interest in your battery and battery parts suppliers? Did they file campaign disclosure documents with the FEC? Which of them have a business relationship with EPRI?
10. When you reviewed the Northwest Labs and Battelle lithium ion studies in 2007, why did you not follow their recommendations? When you were told that “the most dangerous thing you can possibly do with lithium ion is pack it in a dense box in a high mass large moving object”, why did that not resonate?”
See Fisker Exploding Electric Lithium Ion in their cars at:
The way Tesla has the batteries made is WORSE than Apple’s Foxconn disaster.
Workers are suffering deadly toxic poisoning effects that Tesla tries to hide offshore. The lithium ion in the batteries is NOT the same kind of lithium the drugstore has. The Tesla version in the batteries is a deadly toxic mix of chemicals in a fine powder and gas. Workers inhale this and get it on their clothes and die about 10 to 15 years later. Making Lithium Ion cores overseas: it’s the problem that solves itself!. The evidence dies off rapidly. Sad.
Robert- National Geographic Researcher
OH LOOK, OTHER, DIFFERENT-THAN SEATTLE FIRES IN TESLA CARS. And MUSK said there have never been fires….
Tesla Fire is About Rushing, Subsidizing Immature Technology, Not Stock Price
Printer-friendlyEmail to friendA fire (screen capture from Jalopnik.com) that torched a Model S from the formerly Teflon Tesla Motors on Tuesday blackened its front end, lowered its stock price, and (further) revealed a corporate arrogance not seen since Fisker Karmas were alight.
But CEO Elon Musk saw to it that taxpayers were fully paid back their $465 million Department of Energy loan, so as watchdogs over the public purse we can forget all about it and just go on about our business – right?
Wrong. The incident near Seattle still should be of great concern because Tesla still heavily depends on tax breaks (like the consumer’s $7,500 federal credit) and the sale of emissions credits (mainly from California) to partially subsidize the costs of their electric cars. Moreover, the government has invested billions of dollars in the research and development of new battery technology, all in the name of energy efficiency in order to save the world from global warming. Those based on lithium have gone up in flames in planes, plants and automobiles.
One of these days there will be a fatality, but until then manufacturers dismiss the incidents. The statement Tesla issued about the fire in Kent, Wash. was matter-of-fact and lacked any expression of concern for the vehicle’s owner.
“Yesterday, a Model S collided with a large metallic object in the middle of the road, causing significant damage to the vehicle,” the company response said. “The car’s alert system signaled a problem and instructed the driver to pull over safely, which he did. No one was injured, and the sole occupant had sufficient time to exit the vehicle safely and call the authorities. Subsequently, a fire caused by the substantial damage sustained during the collision was contained to the front of the vehicle thanks to the design and construction of the vehicle and battery pack. All indications are that the fire never entered the interior cabin of the car. It was extinguished on-site by the fire department.”
It almost sounds like Tesla wants an “attaboy” for the brilliance of its safety features and battery design, rather than express how grateful that the driver was not hurt. Whether there actually was a “large” chunk of metal that was struck still isn’t clear from the evidence, but if there was, it’s not a reason for Tesla to be absolved of responsibility. After all, debris is struck in roadways regularly around the country and it doesn’t cause episodes like this. What, for instance, if the Model S had actually collided with an object in the road and it rendered the driver unconscious? Then we’d be talking about a much different result.
Back when Fisker Automotive was still alive and stumbling, their public relations department handled mishaps in a similar fashion. In May 2012 a Fort Bend County, Texas fire marshal attributed a garage blaze to the homeowner’s Fisker Karma, which he had parked shortly before he started smelling burning rubber and discovered the fire. Nevertheless Fisker issued a statement that said, “As of now, multiple insurance investigators are involved, and we have not ruled out possible fraud or malicious intent. Based on initial observations and inspections, the Karma’s lithium ion battery pack was not being charged at the time and is still intact and does not appear to have been a contributing factor in this incident.” The owner was not pleased by the challenge to his integrity.
And after a California Karma fire in August last year, the company said, “We have more than 1,000 Karmas on the road with a cumulative 2 million miles on them. There are more than 185,000 highway vehicle fires in the US every year…No injuries were reported; the vehicle was parked; and the fire was extinguished safely by the emergency services.”
The arrogance isn’t limited to the automotive realm. In April this year Boeing, after a series of “thermal runaway” incidents on its lithium-ion battery-powered Dreamliner, officials announced they gave up trying when it couldn’t find the source of the problem. Instead the manufacturer said they came up with a solution that would both contain a potential fire and vent its heat outside the airplane if another fire happened.
“In some ways it almost doesn’t matter what the root cause was,” said Michael Sinnett, Boeing’s top engineer.
Undoubtedly there are a lot of very smart people who have worked very hard on developing these new technologies. But likewise there have been equally brilliant individuals warning these engineers and entrepreneurs that they are dealing with dangerous materials and chemistry, and that just because someone hasn’t been hurt yet, doesn’t mean it can’t happen.
Lewis Larsen of Chicago-based Lattice Energy LLC has consistently called attention to the problems with lithium ion technologies and their tendencies to thermally run away – or, in other words, burn uncontrollably. The practicality problem (other than their immense cost) with the batteries is that when they experience stress – for any number of reasons – it’s almost like unleashing hell.
“…A battery cell’s electrochemical reactions can suddenly start running at greatly elevated rates that create more process heat than normal thermal dissipative mechanisms can easily handle,” Larsen wrote, “which then starts raising the temperature of battery cell contents out beyond their ideal safe operating range…(eventually) a dangerous feedback loop is created…thermal runaways are thus born….”
For many – perhaps most – people that isn’t the kind of risk you want in your “mobile platform,” as Larsen put it. But rather than emphasize those challenges, most of the media coverage has emphasized what the incident has done to Tesla’s stock price, which irrationally skyrocketed upward this year.
Part of the bombastic investor enthusiasm stemmed from other superlatives bestowed upon the Model S, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s top score of five stars, which spurred Musk to make sure the media was told the car scored even higher on some safety aspects. And then in May Consumer Reports’ announced the Model S scored 99 out of 100 – almost perfect!
It was all too much too soon for the electric car with a minimal track record. The doubts and questions about lithium ion batteries used in vehicles and planes – and the massive taxpayer subsidization of them – are still valid.
Paul Chesser is an associate fellow for the National Legal and Policy Center and publishes CarolinaPlottHound.com, an aggregator of North Carolina news.
How Safe are Lithium-Ion Batteries?
The recent incident of a Tesla Model S all-electric vehicle catching fire is renewing questions about the safety of lithium-ion batteries and their use in transportation applications.
The Tesla story is the second high-profile case this year, the other involving Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner, both of which involve incidents with lithium-ion batteries. The cases are shining a spotlight on the use of lithium-ion batteries in transportation and the challenges designers face in minimizing the risks of battery failure. Is this technology robust and mature enough to be used extensively in transportation applications (such as airplanes and automobiles) while not posing any elevated safety risks?
For right now, the main strategy appears to be one of recognizing the underlying failure mechanism of lithium-ion battery cells and dealing with this possible failure through containment
Does Tesla’s Battery Fire Tempt Boeing to Schadenfreude?
The joke about the mixed emotions when ones’ mother-in-law drives off a cliff in your brand-new-car surely must describe how Boeing feels today watching Tesla defend the lithium ion batteries powering its cars.
He then adds, “Wow, I can feel the heat in here.” That may be the more significant statement which I will get to in a moment.
For now, I want to remind readers that when Boeing experienced two thermal events on Dreamliner batteries in January, prompting safety regulators to ground the airplane for four months, Tesla’s boss, Elon Musk told FlightGlobal that the planemaker’s design was “inherently unsafe.”
Along with others, I’ve been saying that as well. The difference here is that Musk believes his company figured out the secret sauce; more, smaller and more widely separated cells while Boeing was using large, more closely-spaced cells in the Dreamliner.
|Celina Mikokajczak at the NTSB hearing on lithium ion battery safety|
This is what makes the batteries on Tesla electric cars safer than Boeing’s electric plane, according to Musk. Celina Mikokajczak, an Tesla engineer explained this and more to the NTSB at a hearing in Washington DC in April.
In order to get the airplanes back in the air, Boeing did create more breathing room between the eight cells per battery on the two batteries on each 787. Boeing also constructed a big box it claims will contain any thermal event and vent any fumes. But whether Musk and his clever chemical engineers (or Boeings’ for that matter) have really tamed the beast is still up for discussion.
Lewis Larsen about whom I have written in the past, is already overheated about the Tesla fire. In a mailing to me today, he writes that the fire “is really a form of thermal runaway” and that far from being the smartest folks in the room regarding lithium ion batteries, the Tesla folks have just been the luckiest.
He wasn’t there of course, but Larsen is concerned that the battery may have caught fire spontaneously because Tesla hasn’t solved the problem thermal runaway problems, nor has anyone else.
Tesla, however, is telling reporters “a large metal object” hit one of the modules on the battery triggering the blaze. This is not a minor distinction as far as Larsen is concerned because he’s telling anyone who will listen that these battery cells go bad without notice and that when they do, they can heat up to nuclear-reaction-like temperatures.
Now, the comment of our citizen videographer, who driving by the flaming $70,000 sedan says, “Wow, I can feel the heat in here,” begins to sound more ominous.
Which is why, Boeing executives may be tempted to feel a bit of schadenfreude now that the negative news spotlight has turned from their airplane to Musk’s fancy car. But that’s going to be fleeting. There’s no reveling in Tesla’s discomfort because when it comes to lithium ion batteries, the heat goes both ways.
See Lewis Larsen’s whole presentation and contact him for interviews, below: