| Let’s analyse one of your articles to see the exact misinformation you are swallowing. https://www.autoevolution.com/news/norwegian-ferry-company-b... > 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. This part is at least true. I know you said you won’t believe the real stats since you’ve made up your mind based on a narrative you’ve been fed, but here they are: https://thedriven.io/2023/05/16/petrol-and-diesel-cars-20-ti... > 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 Let’s look at Liverpool: Liverpool car park fire: Hundreds of burnt-out vehicles removed https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-46290095 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. https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/major-incident-declared-lut... Funnily enough this fits with the video of the vehicle showing the number plate: https://x.com/andysoullinux/status/1712232395049422942?s=46&... 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. |
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
They can reignite months later. That never happens to ordinary ICE cars. https://www.evfiresafe.com/ev-fire-reignition That group is pro-EV and they are calling for caution.
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”).
EV sales ARE slowing. More vehicles on the road increases awareness of problems that people can relate to. While some manufacturers are plowing ahead, others want out. The cope: https://abcnews.go.com/Business/electric-vehicle-sales-slowi...
Toyota knows EVs aren't right for everyone: https://fortune.com/2022/10/02/toyota-ceo-electric-vehicles-... and https://toyotatimes-jp.translate.goog/toyota_news/1055_1.htm...
>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.