And gasoline fires and high speed collisions aren't? This is the bit of paranoia around EV deployment that I genuinely fail to understand. Personal vehicles are by far the most dangerous apparatus with which we interact, already. And we're fine with it! Have you ever, even once, called a Civic or Vespa "scary"?

But put a battery in it suddenly they need new tech before you'll be comfortable?

>And gasoline fires and high speed collisions aren't?

Gasoline car fires are quite rarer in modern cars (don't know about the 1950s), and easier to put off than battery car fires.

And people are already afraid of high speed collisions, plus they are orthogonal of the energy technology used.

>Personal vehicles are by far the most dangerous apparatus with which we interact, already.

And under what framing does it make sense to use the above to argue in favor of adding a dangerous battery tech to them is thus not problematic?

Ask your local fire department about putting fires out in battery-powered cars versus gasoline cars. Yes, there is a qualitative difference and it's not in favor of the battery-powered cars.

That's not to say that it's a stopper for them; it's just part of the cost/benefits analysis. The idea of technologies that are better on all parts of the cost/benefit analysis at once is a science fiction or video game concept. In the real world there's always a mixture of positives and negatives between two different technologies.

You seem to be turning this into a discussion of vehicles, but the post you're replying to was purely about batteries. I get it - ICE cars suck. But speaking for myself, I waited until I could get LFP batteries before adding a lot of lithium to my house. I deemed the fire risk of NMC not worth the benefits. I now have about 15kWh of LFP and I'm happy as a clam.

It's not just vehicles. Battery fires from electric bikes and scooters have also caused issues. And currently you can't put a battery pack into plane hold luggage because of fire risks.