Will this be a factor in buying an ev ? Thoughts on the matter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBv4eD9AIRs
200 Cars Burnt at Airport - Possible Cause EV
zombie hunter on 24/08/2024 - 08:14
Last edited 26/08/2024 - 12:52 by 1 other user
Last edited 26/08/2024 - 12:52 by 1 other user
Comments
- 1
- 2
Climate change ! Burnt Ev's, now that would be progress š
"The vehicle involved was diesel-powered ā it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle. "
https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/fire-airport-car-park-startā¦Wrong fire. The one in question happened in Portugal a week ago. It doesn't really matter what started it, a lot of stored energy in a confined space is going to burn regardless and stored petrol on site made it a lot worse, the investigation here isn't complete yet.
Yep and I don't know why do people watch that guy on youtube, just blows small events up to fill the 10 min youtube algo requirement.
I find him annoying af. Feel like the fox news people would subscribe to him like no tomorrow.
Is John Cadogan the Paul Murray of Youtube car commentators?
Well, he is certainly peddling his brand of outrage click bait algorithm farming content to exactly the same consumersā¦
Except I didn't see anyone in the comments blaming Albo and the labor government.
Or you could avoid the shock jock level coverage, read the actual news articles and await the outcome of actual investigations?
https://www.portugalresident.com/pj-police-investigate-massiā¦
Good thing car fires never happen in ICE vehicles though right?
I love their ultra reliable source on the start of the fireā¦ āSICā, which is a TV stationā¦ who heard it from someone who was watching the fireā¦
So, at the moment, Cadoganās whole video is based on 3rd hand information from a random watcher that a tv station interviewedā¦
Of course, I mean it's JC, what else do you expect?
Good thing car fires never happen in ICE vehicles though right?
Of course not because they have ice š§š§ to put out fires.
Only when the mafia plant bombs under them.
yeah, hard to believe anyone would listen to or watch that (profanity). was cringeworthy.
Good thing car fires never happen in ICE vehicles though right?
Such a good argument, except most ICE fires are in vehicles 10+ years old, and the fuel source is not the major segment of fires. Guess what is?
That's right, electrical issues in old cars are the cause of the majority of spontaneous fires. Petrol fires are caused by lack of vehicle maintence (hardly the cars fault).
And comparing a new EV to a 15 year old vehicle, really?
An ev burns down an entire parking lot.
Statistics published by ev intelligentsia: Only one ev burns for every 100 petrol cars burning. š¤
And you continue with your strawman argument. What are the causes of ICE vehicle fires? Majority is electrical faults.
So on top of battery thermal runaway we can also look forward to poorly maintained wheel bearings catching fire, ABS modules leaking causing short circuits, cracked insulation on wiring and short circuits, etc.
Yay for the future of motoring.
I know you don't like John, cause he uses facts and real world studies, but you might find his latest report interesting (or you could just remain with your head in the sand, your choice@[Deactivated]: In case it's not clear I'm the same things as you. What I'm saying is that one ev burns, taking down 100 normal cars and that gets recorded as one ev fire to 100 regular car fires. š
Internal combustion engined vehicles are entirely capable of burning down a multi-storey carpark themselves
proof? link?
The fire at Luton airport was proven to be caused by a diesel Range Rover, as a recent example.
Fires that destroy multi-level carparks are absolutely not a new phenomenon, and have been happening since long before the rise of EVs.
They are also entirely capable of being contained and arrested by current firefighting methods.
Advice from Elon and the EV cronies is to let battery fires burn out. "The fire was contained, but crews were advised by Tesla to allow the fire to burn out, prompting a warning to local residents to stay indoors to avoid the hazardous smoke."
Ok
No it won't affect my choices.
My thoughts are that people take their "news" from some really shit sources and have poor critical thinking skills. This is one post away from flat-earth news.
"The vehicle involved was diesel-powered ā it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle. "
https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/fire-airport-car-park-startā¦
Oh, FFS. Stop buying into this guys outrage narrative. John Cadogan went from being an informative and educated well spoken journalist to being just another YouTube algorithm content farmer. He only makes up stories about the shit that causes the most outrage, and being anti-ev is a pretty lucrative position to be taking at the moment.
Also note that whenever there is an ICE vehicle fire that destroys anything, John is somehow silent on the matter. The only reason John doesnāt equally report on ICE fires is because of their monotonous regularity that would be 95% of his videos and the YouTube algorithm wouldnāt work well.
And just watch how fast this all disappears as soon as it is discovered that an ICE vehicle was the source of the fire. All of a sudden it will be radio silence and ānothing to see hereā¦ā
Click bait/rage bait = engagement.
Engagement = YouTube $
It's a simple recipe.Strange that critical thinkers look past this when the first item aligns with their existing views though
True, but not that strange. Everyone's susceptible to confirmation bias. What's important (IMHO) is to avoid living entirely in echo chambers, so that when we parrot misinformation, we'll have people to challenge us on it. True critical-thinkers will then at least flag that point in our minds as something to verify before repeating it.
A big portion of ICE car fires are deliberately lit or are in cars over ten years old. The issue is the amount of fuel source in batteries, the fumes and that protocols to manage the rare cases of EV fires are not quite there. Like isolating charging bays with concrete bunds (Korea - Merc EQE), wearing SCBA in underground carparks (Korea - Kia EV6), having the access to a burning car to contain the fire (Lisbon airport). Some of the safety protocols may also apply to ICE cars. It is about reducing the severity of such events and the flow-on effects and EV's have brought a variation on it all which hasn't been adequately scoped with regards to fire management.
maybe ICE vehicles do randomly start fires even when the engine isnāt even runningā¦and itās a conspiracy by oil companies? To hide these stories
How long have you been travelling in cars /vehicles with internal combustion engines ? Most of your existence I'm sure , and now they're a problem !
There's no sense preaching to the converted@Murkymerv: And yet car fires have been a staple of daily life for centuries. NSW alone has been dealing with over 1000 petrol and diesel car fires each year for decades now.
The only thing that's changed is the narrative around EVs being prone to fire, which has been disproven many times but still amplified by certain parts of the media. Yes, EV fires can happen and they're often problematic because they're hard to extinguish.
@klaw81: Too late to fix now, but "centuries" is clearly false. I meant decades.
Just getting in before being accused of hyperbole.
"The vehicle involved was diesel-powered ā it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle. "
https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/fire-airport-car-park-startā¦That was Luton. This latest one is in Lisbon.
Your position and claims are either complete trash or utter speculation. Just saying.
You are welcome to provide any evidence for them…
Plenty of other commentators covering this story suggestion a "cover-up" of sorts
They suggest 'cover up' because they want the answer NOW. But the investigations will take time to be thorough. Conspiracy types see any delays as a cover up.
Absolutely correct. John Cadogan is a hack who thrives on controversy, and you can rely on him to cry wolf at every car related fire. His claims about Luton Airport, and the Fremantle Highway were proven to be utterly false.
Possible cause? Just like the ship fire?
Come back with some solid proof of cause. Even then, ICE fires are 100 times more likely than EV fires.
If its cadogan, I'm not even clicking the link.
ICE fires are 100 times more likely than EV fires.
Maybe because only 1% of the cars are EV ?
Thatās not how that works, jv, but yeah, sure.
They refer to individual factors or factors over some metric that levels the data, such as āper 1,000,000km travelledā or āper 100,000 vehicles.ā
You want to stop getting your shit information from SkyNews and (profanity) like Cadogan mumbling away in his circlejerk confirmation bias echo chamber. They are farming you for click throughs.
Start reading from industry experts like Fire Safe and stop being milked for ad revenue.
your shit information from SkyNews
I don't watch SkyNews, but it sounds like you do, since you're so familiar with what they say…
@jv: I know this is just troll baitā¦ but, here I go anywayā¦
Iām familiar with what SkyNews says because of people like you who just regurgitate their propagandist rhetoric bullshit ad nauseam.
I donāt need to go anywhere near SkyNews to know what the latest āoutrage baitā they are slinging this week is, because it just ends up on here through the āusualā channels.
Get some new material. Or at least update your sources.
proof?
Well, that username certainly doesnāt check outā¦ ffs.
No ICE car has suddenly and inexplicably blown up and caused a fire whilst sitting idle in a car park.
But plenty of EVs have caught fire and blown up whilst sitting idel in a car park and/or charging
Absolutely false on three counts.
Firstly, ICE cars catching fire while parked and unattended can and does happen on a regular basis. This is often caused by flammable debris being caught in the suspension or undercarriage, sitting against hot metal. It's also possible for a small oil fire to sit smouldering in the engine bay for hours before it finally burns something important and goes up in flames.
Secondly, EVs don't "explode" as you've described. EV batteries have pressure vents that specifically prevent this. However, explosions can and do actually happen with ICE vehicle's fuel tanks.
Lastly, there haven't been "plenty" of EVs catching fire while charging. So far, there has been only one established example of this happening in Australia since 2013, despite having well over 200,000 EVs on the road at last count.
Figures from international bodies have been able to establish about 400 confirmed cases of EV-caused fires worldwide up to 2022, which is incredibly low.
And finally, if EV fires were a major new risk, we would see major increases in car fires occuring in countries where EVs are much more prevalent. However, this is not occurring - the incidence of car fires is either static or falling.
You should warn people that it's an insufferable Joan cardigan video.
thanks
.
https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/fire-airport-car-park-startā¦.
Delete this misinformation $h17. It was caused by a diesel vehicle.
Go report the dip$h17 on youtube too.
While I think the youtube video is crap, you should probably check you have the right fire (or even the right airport) before posting even more misinformation.
Its the most recent one, in the last few days with 200 cars. Ill admit i didnt look at the OP link, but when i searched EV fire airport caBogan had two videos in the results. One of which was 200 cars and in the last few days.
The other was in sydney and 4 cars. That one was a crashed EV that had the battery out in a holding yard.
Its the most recent one, in the last few days with 200 cars
Do you mean what you linked to is? Because it clearly states:
At its height, more than 100 firefighters tackled the fire, which started in the evening of 10 October 2023 and saw aircraft grounded until the following day.
Did you read the article you linked to? And what's caBogan?
@Euphemistic: Well, can you please demarcate your comments as such. Cos brain cells die reading your drivel.
You looked at the wrong incident, then made a million wrong claims. And when someone casually called you out, your response is "I admit I didn't even watch the video that was linked"…
WTF is wrong with you?
@CoreArchitect: Million wrong claims? Yeah, i found the wrong fire. Where are the other wrong claims?
The video linked is pure click bait from a clown thats whole schtik is ranting about the car industry with half baked facts and also jumping on anti EV rhetoric to line his own pockets. I refuse to watch his dribble.
Sure, you can come from the other side of opinion but got any facts to back up your comments?
@Euphemistic: I haven't made any claims. So I'm not sure what facts you want me to present and to what purpose. What I have said, is the claims that you have made are unfounded. TBH I don't think you even know what my position on the issue is.
Regarding Cadogan — I don't mind his tone. And my observation has been, those who criticise him don't like him as a personality. However, he hasn't really made any unfounded claims without correction. So the fact that you don't like his content because you just don't like him — makes your opinions and positions appear subjective.
But let's come back to your claim that he is an outrage-content-farmer. Let's even say, for the sake of argument, that that's the case. Is he wrong, for identifying that there is a concern with Thermal Runaway, which is basically an EV-only phenomenon? And that emergency services share some (if not all) those concerns?
Now, I found out about this as a concern from his content on his channel. That's a +1 for him in my book.
I haven't made any claims. So I'm not sure what facts you want me to present and to what purpose.
You claimed that ive made a milion false claims. Back up that assertion. If your claiming that someone is wrong, back it up otherwise why should we believe what you write.
Is he wrong, for identifying that there is a concern with Thermal Runaway, which is basically an EV-only phenomenon?
No, hes not wrong about thermal runaway. It is a concern, but its blown out of propotion becasue its rare. Much rarer that fires in ICE (and hybrid). We are so accustomed to the faults with IVE we basically ignore them. Noone parks their ICE in the street 'because fire' so why would you not buy an EV 'because fire'. Just bwcasue cheap andnnasty e-scopter catchbfire regulalry doesnt mean the its the same for EV. Its blown out of proportion.
Cabogan comes from the same line as Fox/sky news and tabloids. They love ranting to create unfounded fear and that is NOT a good thing.
You claimed that ive made a milion false claims. Back up that assertion. If your claiming that someone is wrong, back it up otherwise why should we believe what you write.
That's not how it works, dude. You made the claims, you are the one who has to provide evidence for your claims. The fact that I challenge your claims, doesn't put the burden of proof on me — it's still on you.
No, hes not wrong about thermal runaway. It is a concern, but its blown out of propotion becasue its rare. Much rarer that fires in ICE (and hybrid). We are so accustomed to the faults with IVE we basically ignore them. Noone parks their ICE in the street 'because fire' so why would you not buy an EV 'because fire'. Just bwcasue cheap andnnasty e-scopter catchbfire regulalry doesnt mean the its the same for EV. Its blown out of proportion.
I'm not sure if you are purposefully obfuscating OR you are unable to separate the issues. "Thermal Runaway" is an EV-only phenomenon… so, I'm not sure how the two can be compared.
Further, no one is comparing (not even John) the rate of fires in two different types of vehicles. That comparison is irrelevant, in my view.
If I was going to compare anything anecdotal, I would compare the incidents of entire parking lot/ship/lot/etc of cars burning down before EVs. I just don't recall these incidents occurring this frequently. Not going to hang my hat one that one. But it's definitely a better claim than the ones you voiced.
;"Thermal Runaway" is an EV-only phenomenonā¦ so, I'm not sure how the two can be compared
The consequence is high, but the frequency is a lot lower than ICE fires. Still serious, but definitly not as much of a problem as made out by some. I note what you posted further down:
Hope you charge it in the garage under your house
maybe it was tongue in cheek based on the emoji, but you appear to be advocating against EVs in case of fire but there is more chance of an ICE catching fire and nary a mention.
I just don't recall these incidents occurring this frequently
Maybe thats because they werent 'news worthy' or reported and you just didnt notice. ICE fires are so common its barely reported. Anti EV players love to jump on, and amplify anything negative EV related. To be somewhat fair though, EVs are still fairly new and long term stats arent there yet.
If you want anecdotes, i can think of two recalls for ICE where they didnt want them parked indoors because of a fire risk. From memory, one Hyundai and one Ford.
you are the one who has to provide evidence for your claims.
The two claims Ive made in this thread have evidence linked. EV fires are 100 times less likely than ICE.
Its true, the other one was misdirected - the souce of a carpark fire being for the wrong fire (but it was a diesel vehicle). Ive yet to see you provide any form of link.
The point about Cabogan is personal opinion, no need to back that up.
If I was going to compare anything anecdotal, I would compare the incidents of entire parking lot/ship/lot/etc of cars burning down before EVs. I just don't recall these incidents occurring this frequently.
I would suggest that is not because such incidents were not occurring, but because there those incidents weren't being amplified in the media by politically or financially motivated actors.
If you do a quick search for carpark fires, you'll see that there are plenty of very significant carfires happening all over the place, all the time. But you never hear about them…..unless there is an EV allegedly involved, and then suddenly there's a wild cascade of clickbait headlines arrive, and lots of unfounded speculation from the usual "sources," most of whom are later proven false by official investigations. But by then, people have already moved on to the next scandal and never realise how much of what they "learned" from the original articles was absolute tripe.
There's a pretty thorough article detailing a bunch of car-carrying ship fires if you're interested. From memory, there is only one ship in that surprisingly long list which is strongly suspected of being caused by an EV fire, and you've probably never even heard of the rest of them despite them being pretty significant disasters.
https://gcaptain.com/a-brief-look-back-at-recent-car-carrierā¦
"The vehicle involved was diesel-powered ā it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle. "
https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/fire-airport-car-park-startā¦
Stop your FUD against EV's. EV'ss are safer than ICE vehicles.
EV'ss are safer than ICE vehicles.
That depends on how you do your comparisons.
On a vehicle per vehicle count, ICE is 100 times more likely to catch fire.
ICE is 100 times more likely to catch fire.
No it's not.
@jv: https://www.drive.com.au/caradvice/how-many-electric-cars-haā¦
Passenger electric vehicles have a 0.0012 per cent chance of catching fire, according to research from EV FireSafe, which provides free EV fire safety knowledge for emergency responders. In comparison, petrol or diesel-powered cars have roughly a 0.1 per cent chance of igniting.
Its not even close. EV 100 time less likely.
according to research from EV FireSafe
š¤£š¤£š¤£
How about some independent research.
@jv: Go look for yourself. I picked one article, from a (somewhat) reputable aussie publisher with a link to a published article. It wasnt john cabogan or another clown vying for clicks.
Come back with a verifiable counter if you think I'm wrong. You're argument of 'no' doesn't cut it.
@jv: So show us what your results are. I'm happy to learn but if you cant or won't show, you're just trolling.
The articles I've seen have all said its about 100:1.
@Euphemistic: soooo at 0.1% you that is 1 in a 1000 cars. that is 20,000 fires in Australia alone, 100's of thousands in places like the US, I think I smell BS.
Edit: I think I remember this stat from last year, it was debunked as dodgy data from one insurer in the US and then repeated and copied everywhere.
@gromit: Depending on the source, there are somewhere between 180,000 and 300,000 car fires in the US every year.
According to the NSW government, there are about 3000 car fires in NSW alone each year.
Those figures suggest the 1 in 1000 statistic isn't too far out.
It's worth bearing in mind that a car fire does not mean every single vehicle is entirely burned to destruction.
I couldnāt even watch the video, the way the guy talks is painful to listen to. It appeals to a certain type of market only I suspect.
Yeah the part that understands physics.
Naah, the ones that get "physics" education from Facebook.
Most of his viewers wouldn't even know what a derivate is, but it looks like there's a large market for being a third derivative. He needs to update the T-shirt.
Any post that consists of an unexplained/unsummarised YT link followed by "what do you think" is a total waste of time.
Didn't bother to click on the link and waste X minutes of my life.
All it demonstrates is a failure of our secondary education system.
EV Fires are bad.
Are Class D Extinguishers compulsory in EV's?
Diesel and petrol fires are bad.
Are Class B extinguishers compulsory in ICE vehicles?
House appliance fires are bad.
Are Class AtoZ extinguishers compulsory in houses?
Are EV fires inherently more dangerous. Absolutely.
Are EV fires easy to put out. No. An ICE fire can most likely be put out with a garden hose/fire extinguisher, an EV fire requires the whole fire department and then some to be put out.
Is personal safety an issue. Absolutely. Thermal runaway is instantaneous. Occupants literally have seconds to exit an EV fire. The source of the fire is literally only centimeters below the occupant(s) feet and torso. Additionally the toxic gases released are deadly and explosive in confined spaces.
Is it relevant to know whether the Lisbon fire was caused by an EV or ICE vehicle. No. The outcome would be the same. EV's randomly scattered on the parking level made the fire impossible to put out by the fire crews that essentially had to wait for all the EV fires to run their course.
An interesting statistic would be the number of EV and ICE fires per 100k vehicles.
There is a research study shown in the Cadogan video with this.
You pretty much got it right, where some comments are complete crap and show the lack of understanding the issue.
You can guarantee misinformation when EVs are mentioned. The anti-EV click farms get stuck into every story
You can guarantee misinformation when EVs are mentioned. The anti-EV click farms get stuck into every story
Do you count professional fire fighters among them? Because they're just one entity who have to clean up the mess of a society determined to "move fast and break things".
An ICE fire can most likely be put out with a garden hose
Holy shit… I would pay to watch someone put out a car fire with a "garden hose". Back in my SES days attending car fires, not once did we ever think to just use a "garden hose".
Thermal runaway is instantaneous
No, petrol explosions are "instantaneous". EV fires tend to start very very slowly and usually give people time to escape…
Occupants literally have seconds to exit an EV fire
Where as a petrol or diesel fire is slow? Grow up.
The source of the fire is literally only centimeters below the occupant(s) feet and torso
Wait till you hear about where they mount fuel tanks in ICE vehicles… EV batteries are usually mounted in large metal boxes with protective metal plates surrounding that. Petrol tanks are plastic and held in with a strap…
the toxic gases released are deadly and explosive in confined spaces.
Are you reading what you are regurgitating? EV batteries dont tend to "explode", they just burn. Petrol and diesel on the other hand… Petrol lets off vapour that can fill a confined space. Being a liquid fuel, both diesel and petrol can escape and run down the road or fill up lower laying areas with burning fuel… EV's tend to just sit in the one spot and burn.
EV's randomly scattered on the parking level made the fire impossible to put out
This is just plain wrong… The large amounts of highly volatile and liquid fuels made this fire near impossible to put out. As cars caught fire, their plastic petrol tanks either explode or melt, leaking out vast amounts of liquid fuel and ignitable fuel vapours. That coupled with the large amounts of fuel that were stored on the site didnt help.
An interesting statistic would be the number of EV and ICE fires per 100k vehicles.
I'm glad you asked… You can see the stats laid out by EV Fire Safe on how many fires there have been of EV's since 2010 till 2024.
Up until Dec 2023, there had been 6 reported EV fires in Australia. ICE fires are that common that there really is no reporting body keeping track of them due to them being a such a regular occurrence.
If you like, you can have a read through the study on EV fires done by Swinburne University (But you wont like it, it isnt a SkyNews "confirmation bias" type study.)
Anyway, to put it simply, what you said above is 98.7% bullshit or manipulated or is misleading by deception/omission. Yes, I agree that EV fires are dangerous, but so are liquid fuel fires. They both have their challenges. But the problem here is that EV fires are a far far rarer occurrence than what ICE fires are, even when accounting for "per 100k vehicles"
And for the record, I'm not "pro-ev" I am just anti-bullshit, and if you are going to make these stupid claims, then you need to back it up with at least a shred of facts and links to sources that are not right wing, anti-EV nutjob, cooker comspiricy theory websites designed to extract advertising revenue from smooth brains clicking to find more confirmation bias atricles.
Holy shitā¦ I would pay to watch someone put out a car fire with a "garden hose". Back in my SES days attending car fires, not once did we ever think to just use a "garden hose".
How convenient to leave out "fire extinguisher" when quoting me. I mean its literally right next to "garden hose". Taking snippets out of context is a sign of a weak argument. As a SES and off duty, I can see you using all available resources including a garden hose/fire extinguisher.
No, petrol explosions are "instantaneous". EV fires tend to start very very slowly and usually give people time to escapeā¦
Yes and NO. ICE fires do not result in instantaneous fuel tank explosions. Fires generally start elsewhere, usually in the engine compartment and considerable time passes before even an tank explosion occurs allowing occupants to escape/rescued. Even a leaking fuel tank resulting from an accident does not usually result in explosions. Also, its the fuel vapour that ignites and fuel explosions are rare. As SES you should know all this.
EV batteries are usually mounted in large metal boxes with protective metal plates surrounding that. Petrol tanks are plastic and held in with a strapā¦
You seem to be conflating fuel container material with safety. Plastic fuel tanks are used because the engineered risk of fires and explosions are low. Having a rigid metal capsule for EV batteries is an absolute engineering requirement because the risk of even one cell of the thousands in a EV battery failing is catastrophic.
This is just plain wrongā¦ The large amounts of highly volatile and liquid fuels made this fire near impossible to put out.
Im sure that EV fires that are impossible to put out and control and fueling the fuel from ICE vehicles did not help.
'm glad you askedā¦ You can see the stats laid out by EV Fire Safe(evfiresafe.training) on how many fires there have been of EV's since 2010 till 2024.
I think that its going to take some time before we get reliable robust data regarding safety of EV and ICE fires. Numerous sources cite 2 studies showing the prevalence of ICE fires being 29 and 100 times more likely. Yet another study reported data that showed PHEV's accounted for more than EV and ICE fires combined. https://www.autocar.co.nz/study-claims-hybrids-start-more-fiā¦
The truth is difficult to ascertain. The current data is meaningless. Inconsequential vehicle fires may be counted, for example, when a dropped cigarette butt causes smouldering smoke emanating from the carpet and the fire department is called and puts it out with a water spray bottle. W just don't know. Robust data means comparing apples with apples. Counting for example, vehicles fully engulfed with fire to those of a lessor degree, or some other useful metric, combined with fatalities directly caused by the fire and not trauma from the accident.
Disclaimer: I am anti-bullshit too.
Yet another study reported data that showed PHEV's accounted for more than EV and ICE fires combined.
From the link:
The studyās results indicate that for every 100,000 electric vehicles sold in America, there have been 25.1 fires. By comparison, for every 100,000 ICE vehicles sold there have been 1,529.9 fires, and for every 100,000 hybrid vehicles sold there have been 3,474.5 fires.
And yet we hear only of EV fires - the least likely.
no doubt the bullshit is funded by someone that benefits from it some how
If you like, you can have a read through the study on EV fires done by Swinburne University(swinburne.edu.au) (But you wont like it, it isnt a SkyNews "confirmation bias" type study.)
It wasn't a swinburne study, just an analysis done on the original Conversation article on which this article was based. Bias really lies with evfiresafe.com. A project seed funded by the Defense Dept.
Do you really think a government that is promoting EV's, is going to publish information that calls into question said EVs?
No of course not, they do the same thing in other sectors. Present them in the best possible light.
You are being conned.
If the government were truly serious about low/no emission electric cars, they wouldn't be ignoring or suppressing alternative energy inventors.
Bias really lies with evfiresafe.com. A project seed funded by the Defense Dept.
That scheme would only work if EV fires only happened in Australia, and government had full control of the media. EVs are sold throughout the world, and EVFiresafe are not the only source of global information on the topic.
Every single EV fire in Australia has been a news sensation and highly publicised, and EVFireSafe have accurately reported the change in statistics in response. This is strongly suggestive that there's no cover-up involved.
There are now over 200,000 EVs on Australian roads. If EVs were as volatile as the click-bait morons on YouTube would have us believe, we should be seeing one in the news every week or so by now. A little place like Norway, with 700,000 EVs on the road would be an endless fireworks show.
And yet, the total number of Australian EV fires is still below 10 total…..and that includes at least one that was deliberately set on fire, and one that was inside an already burning house. Meanwhile, Norway reports that the incidence of car fires among EVs is at least 1/3rd of conventional vehicles and the number of car fires in the country seems to be declining.
The latest reporting from this Lisbon fire is that they're still no closer to identifying the source of the fire, so it's definitely not an open & shut case where an EV is the obvious cause.
Did anyone hear about the recent car fire in Russia that destroyed several vehicles in a carpark? Probably not, because it was quickly established that no EVs were involved, and the media lost interest.
If the government were truly serious about low/no emission electric cars, they wouldn't be ignoring or suppressing alternative energy inventors.
Do please tell us about these alternative energy inventors, and what the government has been suppressing.
- 1
- 2
No