> Observations during the fire indicate that electric vehicles did not contribute to the fire development beyond what is expected from conventional vehicles.
That's very funny. If you have ever seen these EV fires you'll know that they are no joke. Have a look at this: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13005001/london-bus... Have you EVER heard of even one petrol-powered bus catching fire, much less multiple in a few weeks in one city?
Insurance companies are drastically raising rates on EVs as more information comes in: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/sep/30/the-quotes-wer... There are many reasons for this, among them the fire hazard. The EVs cost more to fix, of course, but EV batteries can reignite weeks or months after being damaged or catching on fire. So they must also be stored very far apart while being repaired.
This firefighting expert says why these fires are much worse than ICE fires in a thorough presentation at a conference. The audio sucks but the info is gold: https://youtube.com/watch?v=AIXTP-TgPEw
I can't say if this battery replacement costs more than the car because of fire hazards. But I think it was deemed in need of replacement because of possible fire hazards. You be the judge: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/yikes-the-60000-hyundai-i...
If you do a little actual research about lithium battery fires, all of what I'm saying will be very obvious. Idk where your slides came from but they sound very wrong.
I have done research. You have basically hit all the EV bingo misinformation points in one post, and you’ve swallowed it all up apparently. You’re not even distinguishing between the different chemistries.
There are 100k vehicle fires every year in the UK yet the small amount of EV fires make headlines. The petrol and diesel fires are so common you don’t even hear about them.
The fact that you quote the daily mail is the cherry on top - remember when the diesel car burned down Luton airport? The daily mail commenters were calling for the banning of EVs over this.
One ferry company with two ferries banned EVs as an overreaction.
Insurance costs went up for lots of cars, but for EVs it was the high repair costs.
If you do even a little research you will see that EV fires are at least 20x less likely than ICE car fires. The spreaders of misinformation will have you believe that ICE cars are easier to put out - maybe, but why didn’t the TWO fire extinguishers put out the diesel car before it burned down the car park at Luton? What about the car park at Liverpool?
Even with the larger proportion of NMC batteries out there the fires are 20x less likely. LFP batteries are even less likely to go into thermal runaway and they are becoming more prevalent.
Sorry but you're just wrong. We'll see how "safe" these batteries are when they're 10 to 20 years old and still on the road, banged up, subjected to extreme conditions for years, etc.
What exactly is misinformation about insurance rates going parabolic? Or the fact that these fires are self-oxidizing and much hotter than others? Or that ferries in progressive countries don't want to carry them? Or the videos and testimony of an expert at a fire safety conference showing that poison gasses rapidly escape from batteries as they enter the well-known process of thermal runaway? Or a replacement battery for the Hyundai Ioniq costing $60k, more than the MSRP of a brand new one?
>The spreaders of misinformation will have you believe that ICE cars are easier to put out - maybe, but why didn’t the TWO fire extinguishers put out the diesel car before it burned down the car park at Luton? What about the car park at Liverpool?
Many people believe that the media is lying about Luton, and that it was a hybrid battery that caught fire. Regardless of that, isn't it a huge problem if any EV catching fire can cause inextinguishable, toxic fires to spread through a whole car park full of them? I don't know about Liverpool off the top of my head. There are so many terrible parking garage fires now. I never heard of it happening in my whole life until recently, and I'm sure it's because EVs make it dramatically more likely to happen and more damaging.
You ought to consider the incentives behind the media push to assure people that EVs are safe. A large number of politicians behind mandating these death traps would be very embarrassed if the truth was recognized. Instead of waiting for the technology to develop and mature naturally, if that is even possible, they want to force it on us against our will. So forgive me for not giving two shits what any fake stats say on the issue. It will take much more time to settle the question of safety than these jokers are suggesting.
> Li-Ion batteries in electric vehicles pose a significant fire risk, which was further emphasized after the Felicity Ace cargo ship sank almost a year ago.
The Felicity Ace sank and therefore no cause was found. How are they coming to these conclusions? And YOU talk about the media pushing a narrative?
> Statistics tell us that electric vehicles catch fire from time to time, although those fires are far less common than people imagine.
> Only 23 fires were reported in electric vehicles in 2022 making up just 0.004% of Sweden’s fleet of 611,000 EVs.
> In contrast, over the same period, some 3,400 fires we reported in 2022 from Sweden’s 4.4 million petrol and diesel cars representing 0.08% of the fossil car fleet.
> This means that in 2022 a petrol or diesel car in Sweden was around 20 times more likely to catch fire than an electric vehicle.
> Furthermore, fires in electric cars are declining. The MSB says the number of fires in electric cars has been around 20 a year over the last three years, although the number of electric cars over that tie has almost doubled. Presumably, this is due to EV makers improving fire suppressing designs in newer models.
Back to your article:
> It’s unclear what started the fire, but the hundreds of electric cars onboard made it impossible to extinguish.
That’s what they said about The Fremantle Highway when it was on fire, let’s see what happened when they towed it back to port:
> However, between 900 and 1000 cars including the EVs appeared to be in good condition, the chief of salvage company Royal Boskalis Westminster NV, Peter Berdowski, told media last week.
Huh, that’s weird. Looks like the daily mail readers were wrong about that too (surprise!).
The Driven |https://thedriven.io › 2023/08/14Sorry EV haters, big ship fire probably wasn't caused by electric cars
1,000 cars burnt out in a car park fire in 2018. How many EVs do you think were in there 6 years ago? One? Two? It was 99% ICE vehicles along with the one that caused it. I’m sure no toxic fumes were produced as a result of the ICE cars burning lol.
> Many people believe that the media is lying about Luton
Many daily mail readers were saying it was an EV before the fire service even said anything. Here’s what they said:
> The fire service can confirm the initial vehicle involved in the fire was a diesel car.
The video gives an excellent view of those TWO fire extinguishers that failed to put out the fire too. Those ICE vehicles sure are easy to put out!
Facebook and YouTube algorithms are feeding people scary videos and the daily mail and its ilk will happily feed the narrative too. The stats and facts simply don’t back the level of FUD they are amplifying. It’s like refusing to fly over driving over safety fears after looking at a few plane crashes.
> You ought to consider the incentives behind the media push to assure people that EVs are safe.
You ought to do the same, who is pushing the anti-EV narrative? They tried to spread misinformation about range, battery replacement costs (bingo on your post), fires and so much more yet people are realising EVs are viable and cheaper to run. I run my EV for 3p/mile and certain people don’t like that. They are ramping these articles up since sales are still going up ( despite the headlines saying it’s “slowing”). It’s a shame so many people believe it without questioning it.
>Sorry EV haters, big ship fire probably wasn't caused by electric cars
Even if it wasn't caused by EVs somehow, isn't it a huge problem that this cargo is so dangerous in the event of a fire? Ships are very expensive.
>Many daily mail readers were saying it [the Luton tinderbox] was an EV before the fire service even said anything.
Again, the car from Luton may have been a diesel hybrid. If the battery caused the fire or made it far worse, it counts as an EV fire. Here are some thorough discussions. https://youtube.com/watch?v=zk0MWDsueMY and https://youtube.com/watch?v=QZEku6lHfDM . But how dare anyone investigate independently based on video footage? Furthermore, will the same government that is mandating EV adoption be honest about this? Will the fire chief risk defamation and losing his job to say the right thing, knowing that the media will bury him?
>The video gives an excellent view of those TWO fire extinguishers that failed to put out the fire too. Those ICE vehicles sure are easy to put out!
Ok, there's something I have to clear up here. Car fires are not "easy" to put out because there is a lot of flammable stuff on board a car. But it can be put out relatively easily. On the other hand, an EV getting too wet can cause it to catch fire, and even being submerged will not put it out!
https://youtube.com/watch?v=1zaV-JSwzzA
Even the mainstream media admits the truth on rare occasion, mixed with lies like "don't worry, it's SUPER rare!" https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/29/electric-vehicle-fires-are-r... These cars need to be resilient against normal wear and tear, accidents, and also not cause amazingly bad situations in the event of arson.
>They tried to spread misinformation about range, battery replacement costs (bingo on your post), fires and so much more yet people are realising EVs are viable and cheaper to run.
NONE of this is misinformation. The batteries are notoriously expensive and difficult to diagonose. If even Hyundai won't replace its own battery at any dealer for less than the cost of the same car new, that sucks. There are people with an axe to grind for EVs but this is simply a reaction to evil media misinformation.
>Facebook and YouTube algorithms are feeding people scary videos and the daily mail and its ilk will happily feed the narrative too. The stats and facts simply don’t back the level of FUD they are amplifying. It’s like refusing to fly over driving over safety fears after looking at a few plane crashes.
No, I have to go out of my way to find information about this stuff. Youtube and Facebook are beholden to their advertisers and the governments of the world. If this information was easy to get, EV sales would be even more pathetic than they are.
>They are ramping these articles up since sales are still going up ( despite the headlines saying it’s “slowing”).
>I run my EV for 3p/mile and certain people don’t like that.
I don't care if you manage to run it at 3p per mile. If that offsets the extra 10-20k£ and time wasted while charging, go for it. Just as long as I'm not subsidizing it, and your EV does not put me in danger, and nobody is forcing me to get one, and you pay for all the infrastructure that has to be fixed or upgraded due to increased EV usage. That includes: roads, parking garages made to carry double the weight of current ones, fire suppression systems, power plants, and power distribution systems.
I can’t speak to the other things but I looked into the “sales slowing” thing and what’s happening is that we still sell more EV every year than the year before, but the rate of growth has slowed. Despite the misleading title, the article you linked supports this too.
So all this means is that the growth is slowing. Meaning, we’re not on a pure exponential curve but we’re on an s-curve. This is absolutely normal and expected of all new technologies.
Did a famously over-optimistic car company use a pure exponential in their predictions and thus fail to meet predictions? Yes. Are manufacturers of overpriced EVs blaming this instead of their own poor choices? Yes. Are the media trying to make everything much more dramatic than it really is? Also yes.
Point is, EVs are following the absolutely normal trajectory of new tech. They are running low on early adopters and must adapt to the desires of the mainstream buyers - or of they don’t, chinese makers will.
> isn't it a huge problem that this cargo is so dangerous in the event of a fire
There are much more dangerous things shipped all the time? Do they need updated procedures? Maybe? But as we saw at Liverpool and the Fremantle any car fire is dangerous even when EVs are not involved.
> Again, the car from Luton may have been a diesel hybrid.
Again, Nope. Why do we need analysis? We have the fire brigade telling us it was diesel. We have the plate, and the DVLA says it was diesel. Or is this all part of a larger conspiracy?
> But how dare anyone investigate independently based on video footage?
JAQing off is a common tactic when distorting the truth, you should learn to identify it. Watch 2 mins of Tucker and it’s as clear as day.
> I don't care if you manage to run it at 3p per mile. If that offsets the extra 10-20k£ (bingo) and time wasted while charging (bingo), go for it.
I’m on a lease. No upfront cost. My time spent waiting to charge is 0 mins - I actually spend less time waiting than you wait filling up your ICE. It charges while I sleep. If you spend 5 minutes a week filling up that equates to 4 hours a year you are standing at a pump that I don’t have to.
> Just as long as I'm not subsidizing it
You wouldn’t like a world like that. We subsidise innovation all the time. And we would have to remove subsidies for fossil fuels too to be fair, which would be bad news all round since we still need it.
> your EV does not put me in danger, (bingo)
thoroughly debunked I think. No point in going over it again but it does appear on the bingo card.
> and nobody is forcing me to get one, and you pay for all the infrastructure that has to be fixed or upgraded due to increased EV usage. That includes: roads, parking garages made to carry double the weight of current ones(bingo),
Forced? Do what you like. Roads? Good news, they can use the same roads as normal cars!
> On average, an EV weighs 200-300kg more than a petrol car because of the weight of the battery and electric motors.
Let’s look at some car figures to compare: https://www.quora.com/Is-a-Tesla-heavier-than-an-ICE-car-of-...
Tesla Model S - Curb weight 4,647 lbs Audi A8 - Curb weight 4,751 lbs BMW 7 series - Curb weight 4,244 - 4,848 lbs
Tesla Model 3 - Curb weight 3,627 to 4,072 lbs Audi A4 - Curb weight 3,450 to 3,627 lbs BMW 3 series - 3,582 to 4,010 lbs
Looks like you’ll be banning German ICE vehicles from car parks too?
> EV sales would be even more pathetic… EV sales ARE slowing
Slowing… by still rising as expected? The pace of growth is slowing. Just because you are accelerating less doesn’t mean you are slowing. The headlines would have you believe sales are going down.
> LONDON, Jan 11 (Reuters) - Global sales of fully electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) rose 31% in 2023, down from 60% growth in 2022, according to market research firm Rho Motion.
> "The pace of growth is slowing, but that's what's expected in growing markets like this," Rho Motion data manager Charles Lester told Reuters. "You can't double every year."
> Lester said global EV sales last year were largely in line with the 30% growth Rho Motion had forecast. For 2024, the firm forecasts global EV sales growth of between 25% and 30%.
> The highest peak electricity demand in the UK in recent years was 62GW in 2002. Since then, the nation’s peak demand has fallen by roughly 16% due to improvements in energy efficiency.
> Even if we all switched to EVs overnight, we estimate demand would only increase by around 10%. So we’d still be using less power as a nation than we did in 2002, and this is well within the range the grid can capably handle.
Not sure if I covered everything but it gets exhausting addressing every point knowing that you’ll just ignore them and pull out more of the bingo points.
I don’t think there is much point in continuing. There is a narrative that you want to believe and that’s that. YouTube has claimed another victim. It’s sad to see since it happened to a few of my friends with Covid misinformation and they are also eating up this EV stuff same as you. Same story playing out again, despite excess mortality proving them wrong about the covid stuff. The worst part is it’s not even the persons fault, they are just impressionable and the algorithms feed it.
Insurance companies are drastically raising rates on EVs as more information comes in: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/sep/30/the-quotes-wer... There are many reasons for this, among them the fire hazard. The EVs cost more to fix, of course, but EV batteries can reignite weeks or months after being damaged or catching on fire. So they must also be stored very far apart while being repaired.
Ferries do not want EVs on board because of the fire hazard: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/norwegian-ferry-company-b...
This firefighting expert says why these fires are much worse than ICE fires in a thorough presentation at a conference. The audio sucks but the info is gold: https://youtube.com/watch?v=AIXTP-TgPEw
I can't say if this battery replacement costs more than the car because of fire hazards. But I think it was deemed in need of replacement because of possible fire hazards. You be the judge: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/yikes-the-60000-hyundai-i...
If you do a little actual research about lithium battery fires, all of what I'm saying will be very obvious. Idk where your slides came from but they sound very wrong.