The ship is expected to keep burning for weeks.
Actually, it might also sink and release up to 2,000 tons of heavy fuel oil (plus molten plastic, metals etc.) to the Wadden Sea which is on the UNESCO World Heritage List as an important biosphere reserve.
“Of the 3000 cars onboard, 25 are electric and one of those has apparently set light to the whole cargo”
BULLSHIT!
Nobody said so.
But “journalists” nowadays are full of shit and all reporting “currently there’s no proof that some electric car started the fire” (always with #electriccars) - what everyone reads as “yeah, sure the electric car was it!”
meanwhile electric cars are actually LESS likely to start a fire and still nobody in the know has actually claimed electric cars had ANYTHING to do with it.
The article linked in the post says:
A spokesman for the Coast Guard said earlier today that the fire is believed to have started in one of the electric cars. Later in the evening, the Coast Guard said that nothing is yet known about the cause.
So yeah they aren’t sure but it’s coming from the coast guard not the journalist.
Other people actually reported that coast guard not only responded with “we don’t know anything yet”, but also with “nobody of us would have told you a cause and we don’t know who did”
I’ve not seen any proof apart from wild speculation by owner/journalists yet.
And yes, the owner too pointed at electric cars - but neither people on board nor anybody near the ship was telling about that. So I’d guess that’s just repeating headlines too.
My point was: don’t claim “maybe it was electric cars”! because people don’t understand “maybe”
German news said there might have been a Short circuit near those cars, once the Battery catches fire you basically can’t put it out.
I said there might have been aliens, testing new beam weapons - anything is possible.
we’ll never know‽ /s
Its easy to put out car fires but when it comes to the batteries EVs have its a different game. Entirely possible it started with one or with something else. But once an EV is on fire and the batteries go, theyll need special equipment and training to put that out. Likely they didnt have those.
because it’s impossible that the other 3000 cars filled with an explosive liquid could have ignited the fire. No, it’s definitely impossible, those fuel tanks never leak, and gas vapor never explode
Pretty sure they don’t ship cars with gasoline in em, thats extra weight that doesnt need to be there let alone the fire hazard.
The electric cars on the otherhand most likely have the batteries built into the fucking frame.
Tbh all cars have at least one battery. Or it might have been some order random accident that has nothing to do with the cargo. I think we need more info on this
What journalist?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hembrow
If you read the actual article by a journalist they don’t say it’s a certainty. Maybe the problem is people like you who can’t tell a journalist from a random guy.
If you read the actual article by a journalist they don’t say it’s a certainty. Maybe the problem is people like you who can’t tell a journalist from a random guy.
did you even read what I wrote?
I specifically said that journalists are writing “there’s no proof that it wasn’t” and that other people are reading “it was” into it.
It’s exactly that. People are unable to read/understand.
Just tow it beyond the environment.
It’s a reference to this, not a literal suggestion
Whether you like it or not, our modern society can’t function without cars entirely, we still need delivery vehicles etc. Focusing on the fact this vessel dares to carry cars, rather than the fact the fire was able to spread between presumably multiple decks, and cause the entire cargo to burn.
Sprinkler systems on vessels is very much a thing.
Nobody here wants everything with rubber wheels banned. We just want cars to be a form of personal transport to be the lowest prioritized compared to other forms like buses, trains, etc.
Hey it looks like your comment got quadruple posted. Do you happen to use liftoff for lemmy? I do and multiposting happens to me occasionally.
imagine a nationalized train system where you essentially own and park your own traincar. shit could be so efficient you could replace power lines and roads with one
If we only had cars where they are needed, for emergency and delivery vehicles etc, then the demand for these sorts of things would reduce massively and the likelihood of something like this happening would plummet.
Fuel and other hydrocarbons float on water, which makes them very difficult to extinguish.
can’t function without cars entirely, we still need delivery vehicles etc.
yeah, okay. But we need far fewer than we have. So producing them and shipping them around the globe needs to be reduced dramatically. So that point still kinda stands?
And yes “this should have been made safer” is another point - but that doesnt invalidate the other.
So producing them and shipping them around the globe needs to be reduced dramatically. So that point still kinda stands?
The supply side is the wrong place to tackle this problem though. If you limit the amount of new cars that may be produced, people will simply drive their older ones for longer.
Driving an older car, and by extension not buying a newer car, decreases demand and would improve the amount of these cargo ships on the sea, thus lowering the opportunity for this to happen. I’m not sure if your comment was for or against people driving their older cars, but I think driving an older car is better than upgrading and buying a newer car
no infastructure needs to change. less roads more rails that simple. walkable cities and transit in between cities