An insane debate about electric vehicles in disaster control is igniting on the Internet.
The requirements for heavy equipment are actually clear.
Munich - A bitter discussion has broken out among motorists on the Internet.
The triggers were, among other things, pictures and videos from flood areas.
You could often see Tesla-brand electric cars, which apparently drove effortlessly through flooded depressions or deep puddles, while classic combustion engines would have long since run out of air.
The discussion is fed by the current climate protection debate.
Fans and opponents of electric mobility in particular clash on Twitter and Facebook.
Some describe electric cars as useless in the event of a disaster, others have identified the cause of the flood disasters in the combustion engine and would rather get rid of it today than tomorrow.
Debate: Is the crux of the matter gone?
In essence, the disputes ignite time and again because electric vehicles cannot be used in the event of a disaster.
Internet users argue that the combination of water and electricity makes electric cars useless in the floods.
Even after the traffic turnaround, this made combustion engines essential for disaster control.
However, this debate is not practical.
Similar to classic combustion engines, electric cars are splash-proof.
As a rule, the electronics do not come into contact with water - and if so, they are packaged watertight.
This is also confirmed by experts from the ADAC.
At the same time, it is also proven by the videos already mentioned, in which electric vehicles seem to drive effortlessly through the floods.
E-cars even offer a decisive advantage: the electric motors do not need any air for a combustion process and thus remain partially functional even under water.
Tesla boss Elon Musk was visibly proud of the videos of his e-cars, but advised against diving attempts on Twitter.
Debate: Which drive can handle water better?
According to ADAC, the decisive factors as to whether a car is suitable for floods are more ground clearance and center of gravity. Specially equipped off-road vehicles are recommended. Conventional vehicles usually only have 20 to 25 centimeters of ground clearance and should therefore be overwhelmed in most flood situations. Overall, the following applies: Regardless of whether they are electric or combustion engines - both variants are usually not submersible watercraft. As soon as the interior gets wet, the damage is usually great. And once filled up, every car is a total loss and thus a case for the insurance company.
In the debate about equipping heavy emergency equipment with an electric motor, factual arguments often do not play a role.
After all, it would be easy to protect the electronics against the water.
A plastic coating, an oil film or a coating, as is also used on boats and ships, is sufficient.
E-cars: not very practical in the event of a disaster
Where it gets really tight for heavy electric emergency vehicles is power and battery technology. In the case of clearing equipment, excavators and trucks of the THW or the Bundeswehr, a lot of horsepower is particularly important. These are used, for example, to remove obstacles or to transport heavy loads. And they have to stay in action for days in the event of a disaster. Factors that, with the current state of battery technology and charging infrastructure, become a real exclusion criterion for e-vehicles in disaster operations.
Of course, solutions can be found. But it is doubtful whether these are sensible and profitable. The debate as to whether it makes sense or not to replace combustion engines with electric vehicles better today than tomorrow, which should then also be used in the event of a disaster, is therefore an empty one. Heavy equipment with an electric motor will remain a dream of the future for the foreseeable future, even if, as the example of the diesel engine shows, the turnaround in traffic on regular roads has long since begun.