By Steve Goreham
Originally published in Daily Caller.
The nations of the world pursue an unprecedented energy transition. Efforts are underway to force a shift from coal, oil, and natural gas to renewable energy sources by 2050. But key elements of the proposed transition suffer from major safety issues. These are batteries for electric vehicles and electricity storage, and hydrogen fuels for industry.
Most energy sources involve safety risks. Gasoline cars can explode or burn, especially after collisions. Natural gas pipelines and processing facilities have been known to explode or combust. Nuclear power plants have suffered famous disasters such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, when cooling systems have failed. But green energy is bringing a new dimension of safety problems to society.
A transition from gasoline and diesel vehicles to electric models is a major part of the green energy revolution. President Joe Biden, other political leaders, and the International Energy Agency call for electric vehicles (EVs) to completely replace internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles by 2050. EVs with high-capacity batteries are new technology that is rapidly gaining market acceptance. Automakers compete to increase EV range by introducing larger and more powerful batteries. But battery fires may threaten the EV revolution.
Lithium batteries in cell phones and other portable electronic devices are banned from commercial airline baggage compartments because of fire risk. Batteries in electric cars contain graphite, metals, and other materials bathed in flammable electrolytes with thousands of times more energy than your cell phone battery. If they ignite, they can burn for hours with a very high heat and are extremely difficult to extinguish.
Electric cars spontaneously combust. Earlier this year, a father from Elk Grove Illinois was about to pull onto Highway 99 when he felt his Tesla start shaking. He pulled to the side of the road and exited his car, just before it burst into flames. He was unable to save the child car seats from the back of the car and was glad that his children were at home.
This summer, a Florida car owner had her car in for servicing and was given a Mercedes EV as a loaner. The loaner was parked in her garage and not charging when it burst into flames. The flames and smoke caused heavy damage to her home.
BMW, Ford, GM, Hyundai, and Tesla electric cars have all experienced problems with battery fires. In the most visible case, GM recalled all 141,000 Chevrolet Bolts produced between 2016 and 2021.In August, electric truck maker Nikola announced a recall of all 209 of its heavy electric trucks because of battery fires.
In total, the number of EV fires per vehicle does not exceed the fire rate for ICE vehicles. But EVs can ignite unexpectedly when charging overnight in the garage or even when just parked in the driveway, locations where gasoline-powered cars typically don’t catch fire.
Battery fires are very hard to extinguish. They can burn for hours while fire departments douse them with water, and even re-ignite after the fire appears to be out. Some fire departments have resorted to lifting the flaming EV and dropping it into a huge tank of water to extinguish the flames.
Grid-scale batteries are being deployed by utilities in Australia, the US, and other nations. These are huge batteries, which provide electricity storage to back up wind and solar facilities. When wind and solar systems generate excess electricity, it can be stored in batteries and released when the wind is not blowing, or the sun is not shining. But grid-scale batteries also have issues with self-ignition.
Today, grid-scale batteries store only about one millionth of the electricity that the world uses annually, but many of the few batteries that have been deployed already have suffered major fires. Batteries have burst into flame in Arizona, California, New York in the US and in Australia and the United Kingdom. Grid-scale battery fires result from thermal runaway, caused by mechanical damage, poor air conditioning, or overcharging.
What is now the leading cause of accidental fires in New York City? The answer isn’t cooking or smoking, but it’s fires from e-bike lithium batteries. Batteries on e-bikes spontaneously burst into flames when charging or just when sitting idle. After ignition, the batteries burn with a high heat and set fire to storage areas or whole buildings, sometimes killing or injuring residents.
According to the New York City Fire Department, e-bike fires jumped from 44 in 2020 to more than 200 this year. The fires caused 10 deaths and over 200 injuries in the city during the past two years.
Green hydrogen, produced from electrolysis of water, is also proposed as a new fuel for the energy transition. Leaders call for a hydrogen economy to reduce emissions and fight global warming. Hydrogen is touted as a transportation fuel and a replacement for natural gas and coal in heavy industry. More than $280 billion in subsidies have been committed globally to develop green hydrogen.
But hydrogen exists in nature only in compounds. Pure hydrogen is very reactive and takes only a low level of energy in the presence of oxygen to burst into flames. The world’s rush to deploy hydrogen fuel may become a major safety hazard.
In 1937, the airship Hindenburg exploded in Lakehurst, New Jersey. The explosion ended 35 years of efforts to deploy hydrogen airships. More than two dozen airships exploded from 1908 to 1937 from accidental hydrogen fires, killing hundreds of passengers and crew. The world decided hydrogen airships were too hazardous to continue their use.
But green energy advocates now call for a network of hydrogen pipelines, public hydrogen fueling stations for vehicles, and even the use of hydrogen to heat homes. These systems will need to compress hydrogen to 700 atmospheres of pressure, making leaks probable. And unlike natural gas, hydrogen leaks are prone to spontaneous combustion and resultant explosions and fires.
Vice President Kamala Harris recently announced $1 billion in grants for electric school buses. But the number of electric bus fires around the world is growing. Forbid that we start having spontaneous fires in electric buses full of children.
It’s clear that world leaders are ignoring the growing safety problems of green energy. But these fears must be pushed aside in favor of Climatism, the fear of human-caused global warming.
Steve Goreham is a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy and the author of the new bestselling book Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure.
??? Has the ratio of E bikes to fires remained stable???
It looks like a five fold increase in the number of fires.
Has the number of E bikes also increased by a factor of 5?
This thing came in, in a device called retroflag. *uses a Rpi CM4 inside for a little hand held gamer/streamer on Kodi.
It was “flagged” as failed at low hrs, so sold off with a bunch of 2 others cheap. I took it to bits and changed the pack.
It now works.
If a tiddly little battery can’t be reliable and went up in smoke, it beats me to understand how we should be putting this in a moving vehicle x 3000 in size weighing 3/4 ton, let alone send it vibrating and bouncing along roads.
I keep saying, -next ro-ro ferry or Eurotunnel disaster is coming soon, simply a matter of time.
The stats simply are proportional to the level of risk.
Multiple EVs x 10-100 on the roads with a pile of highly reactive A-E metal Lithium inside it.
The level of risk of serious fires goes up by the same proportions.
Nothing “tiddly” about EV batteries. And the data show that the risk of an EV fire per vehicle is 1/20th that of the risk of an ICV fire.
The risk of ICV fires is clearly not worth the benefits of fossil fuel vehicles – if fuel safety is your main concern in life. For most, it’s not. People never even think about the risk of burning to death in their automobiles.
“the risk of an EV fire per vehicle is 1/20th that of the risk of an ICV fire”
Based on total numbers for each that have burned? Or based on risk per vehicle? Or based on mileage? I could look it up but you already must know. And, how do the fires differ in intensity and actual danger?
And related cause.
ICE vehicles don’t Spontaneously Combust sitting out n the driveway or garage and seldom combust while refueling unless the filler is foolish.
EVs combust …
just traveling down the road
Sitting in the garage plugged in charging
Sitting in the garage not plugged in
Sitting in the driveway plugged in charging
Sitting in the driveway not plugged in
Parked in a public parking lot
After sitting in flood water
After driving through flooded streets
Whether involved in an accident or not.
ICE vehicle combustion requires …
Foolish refuelers
Accident rupturing fuel line or fuel tank
External ignition source
Did I miss any potential situations for either type?
It’s the same specious argument as housecats k!lling more ‘birds’ than windmills, Joe. Technically accurate but totally disingenuous.
Just as windmills whack endangered raptors that might eat your kitty, an EV fire in your garage is a disaster-level event that is exceedingly unlikely to occur with an ICE vehicle.
Your ICE car could catch fire in your garage and you could resolve the problem with a household fire extinguisher and probably still get the car repaired. With an EV fire that burns unquenchably for hours, you’ll be lucky if you don’t lose your entire house. Forget any possibility of salvaging the car.
not sure why you addressed that to me- I’m no fan of EVs- I ask a lot of questions though- if the state of Wokeachusetts wants to give me- I’ll take it- same with solar panels- I’ll take anything for free
I was just agreeing with you Joe. But if they’re giving out EVs I’d only accept one if you can immediately resell it!
Kamala is giving away $1b in electric busses!
Where do we sign up?
The only time Duane produced any numbers, he was comparing the number of EVs sold last year vs the number of ICVs sold last year.
Duane is famous for using numbers that don’t actually support the claims he is making. I’m wondering if someone in his family owns an EV dealership.
You missed part of the context. ICV vehicles don’t generally catch on fire in the garage or driveway while not operating and with no one around. Very few people die from ICV fires in their garage while sleeping in bed. But with an EV it is possible, especially if the EV is charging while in the garage.
Your idea of risk is a good one. That is why ferry services in many place refuse to haul EV’s. That is why ocean transport companies have reduced or eliminated having ships full of EV’s. That is why people have been told not to park their EV in garage when powering and this includes electric scooter/bikes.
I have never heard of a spontaneous combustion in an ICE vehicle.
When an ICE spontaneously combusts, it’s always the result of a short in the electrical system, and it almost always is the result of an after market modification done by a non-professional.
Last time I checked, EVs also have electrical systems, and they are usually as big, if not bigger, than the electrical systems in ICVs.
I’ve experienced two fires in pickup trucks in 50yrs of driving, both were
caused by fuel pumps and both were extinguished with a small fire extinguisher
with no repairs needed other than new fuel pumps. The newer units have better
pumps.
I had a hung brake caliper on a newer truck @ 250K’ish miles I stopped when I
noticed it and called a wrecker and got it repaired it never caught fire. I always have
a fire extinguisher in every unit.
A hung caliper is more likely on a EV due to the higher weight and a fire on a EV can’t be put out.
The mechanics that repair my heavier stuff refuse’s to have any
EV’s in their shops. They have several volunteer firemen on their staff and have
discussed this at considerable length.
Of course, not many normal cars will lock you inside. Nor do they burn with the ferocity of a battery car and from a source directly under the cabin.
The numbers don’t show that at all. Every time you have tried to produce numbers to support your claims, they have been shredded, so now you don’t even bother producing a source for your numbers, just more made up claims.
Age of vehicle and miles driven should also be a big factor.
duane talking utter bollox again.
Go tell your fibs to Paris tax payers after 2-4 out of the 150 did this, and stupid rules to prevent people driving to work..
Paris’ transport operator, RATP (Régie Autonome des Transports Parisiens), has ordered 800 electric buses to be in service by 2024. They will replace the current diesel buses in a bid to improve air quality in the French capital as part of a wider plan to clear up air pollution before the Paris 2024 Olympics.
The project is set to cost €400 million….
Mayor of Paris, [NUTTER ]Anne Hidalgo has made tackling smog one of her main priorities and is planning on enforcing stricter rules aimed at phasing out diesel cars by 2024.
(which motorists are furious about!)
The renewal of the RATP bus fleet with 100 per cent electric buses makes Paris a world leader in [self destructing] urban road transport. 2019.
Here is where they have been sitting for more than a year.
So much for your dumber than dumb risk assessments.
2022…
…the more time passes to carry out these assessments, the more suspicion grows around the electric strategy of the RATP, which today has nearly 500 vehicles of this type [= 6%] (purchased from the Bolloré subsidiary, but also from the Heuliez and Alstom) out of a total of 4,700 buses.
500/4700
Can’t answer your queries but can say that here in the UK the London fire brigade dealt with over 116 fires in e scooters and e bikes in 2022 and in August this year reported they had already dealt with more than that number in 2023.
The only number I could find was…as of July 27, 2023 there were 65,000 E bikes in NYC.
Couldn’t locate any figures for prior years though I did find that City approval for their use only came in 2020 although they were being used Unapproved prior to then.
It’s not just the number, it’s the average age of the units that are out there and how heavily are they being used.
In the end its insurance that will put a stop to these technologies.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/sep/30/the-quotes-were-5000-or-more-electric-vehicle-owners-face-soaring-insurance-costs
The problem with the cars is not just that they may burst into flames, which seems to be very rare (though catastrophic when it does happen). Its also that the costs of accident repair are higher, and the percentage of accidents leading to a write-off is much higher, because of potential or actual battery damage.
Very unwise to park one in an attached garage, or even close to a house. The chances of it igniting may be small but the costs will be huge if it does. Another unfortunate scenario will be three or four parked in a street of terrace houses lined with parked cars on both sides. One goes and could take the whole street with it.
Why would the insurance companies “put a stop” to a technology that is 20 times safer than fossil fueled vehicles? Because that is the actual risk of fire per vehicle. If you are thinking insurance companies are going to make the decision for individuals and for society, then they would quickly terminate fossil fueled vehicles for safety reasons.
Are they safer if you get stuck in traffic and your battery runs down? Or, you get stuck in a snow storm on a mountain road? I don’t think anyone has said the insurance companies will put a stop to EVs- only their costs will be higher- partly due to the higher cost of the vehicle if it needs replacing or repairing and partly due to the fact they work hard to think of excuses to raise the rates.
In the UK at least one underwriter is refusing to insure them.
The invisible hand of the market exerts its forces, Duane. We see this already with lithium prices crashing along with auto companies canceling and delaying EV plants.
And spontaneous combustion of EVs is inherent to them because of chemistry, and the physics of kinetic energy gives them a number of other technical challenges.
Duane, already in GB one insurance company has stopped insuring EVs.
Yep, if every time you are involved in an accident that even minorly affects the battery and the insurance co is on the hook for $14,000-$26,000 worth of battery replacement even if otherwise only it was only $3,500 worth of fender damage, the additional cost per accident will increase insurance rates for EVs to a point that general ownership for the Hoi Polloi becomes unaffordable. Not that EVs are very affordable in the first place.
Read much? It’s in the first sentence. It’s the extremely high cost to replace a damaged battery that is causing insurance companies to back off, not fire risks.
The reason why batteries have to be replaced, is because of the fire risk from damaged batteries.
Don’t be such a moron Duh-wayne!
Your ‘logic’ is based on comparing apples to oranges—or matches to H-bombs. Just like your ilk talk about more ‘birds’ being killed by cats than windmills, if you equate inconsequential, easily extinguished fires with unquenchable, toxic-fume spewing conflagrations of course you can craft statistics that help you sell your lie.
We might similarly say that cancer is a far less frequent illness than the common cold.
Duane, you may not like it. You might do different were you an actuary employed by an auto insurance underwriter.
But they are professionals, their businesses depend on it, they are looking at the numbers, and they are doing it. If you really believe they are wrong, I guess you could start up your own insurance company and give a discount to EV drivers. If you are right, you will have no problem raising startup capital, and you will make a fortune.
And the actuaries at the established insurance companies will turn out to have got it all totally wrong.
Good luck. I and the other contributors to this thread are just telling you what conclusions the insurance companies are coming to, and what their pricing is reflecting.
that is the actual risk of fire per vehicle
What is the comparative risk of spontaneous combustion while sitting in a parking garage?
Duane is using sales figures from last year.
He is not comparing the number of EV/ICVs on the road.
He is also not compensating for the average age of the two fleets, nor is he compensating for differences in how the two fleets are driven.
In other words Duane’s number do not measure what he claims they measure.
However they support the position he has chosen to take, so he keeps using them, no matter how misleading they may be.
Poor Duane, when he gets ahold of a good lie, he just can’t let go of it.
Insurance companies are already charging more to insure EVs, so insurance companies are already refusing to insure EVs at all.
This is happening right now, in the real world. For some reason the insurance companies can see through the lies of the EV industry. Why can’t you?
So where is your EV dealership located???? Asking for a friend.
There’s a new hazard where some EVs don’t have parts of the battery separated from the passenger compartment:
https://youtu.be/R-iO1YUj2wA
Sounds like Biden needs to force ICE manufacturers to do away with fuel pumps and instead to pressurize fuel tanks with compressed air to drive fuel injection. That way they’ll be more dangerous and also susceptible to spontaneous combustion.
It’s only fair. Plus, repressurizing the tank after each refueling could help make EVs recharging times more competitive with ICE car refueling times.
Oh, we can have our own little climate scare in form of battery scare here. How cute.
As shown in the linked video from the article:
Its when the fires are happening that is bothering people. Don’t know about the hybrids, but the gas fires are probably the result of collision or external event. The EV fires seem to just happen with no obvious cause.
So people are unwilling to take the very small chance that their car may burst into flames while they are driving, or while its parked, refuelling or not. And this is quite reasonable, its a very low probability but very high payoff. And insurance companies are unwilling to cover for intense high temperature fires, very hard to extinguish, which may happen any time. However infrequent they may be statistically.
When you look at insurance rates, its a serious issue. I cited the Guardian in another post, but there is also a paywalled story in the UK Telegraph:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/net-zero/ev-electric-car-insurance-premiums-peugeot-tesla/
Lots of evidence of a problem. Eg:
Claims for EVs are 25.5pc more expensive than their internal combustion engine (ICE) equivalents and take 14pc longer to repair, according to the ABI.
David Pilsworth, 29, was shocked when the price to insure his Peugeot e-2008 shot up from around £62 a month to £445.50 a month when his AA policy came up for renewal in July.
The huge rise meant he faced paying £5,346 a year to drive his car, even before factoring in other costs.
Two months before Steve Lamb’s £360-a-year insurance came up for renewal, he started shopping around on comparison sites to check average prices.
“The quotes I got ranged from over £900 to £3,000,” he said. “It’s daylight robbery.”
The batteries electric cars run on are a big part of the problem. A Telegraph investigation revealed instances where electric vehicles were written off due to minor damage sustained by their batteries.
Experts attribute this vulnerability to the battery being located on the underside of the vehicle, increasing the likelihood of damage even in minor accidents.
Mark Fry, of automotive risk firm Thatcham Research, said the cost of replacing a battery – typically between £14,200 to £29,500 – could be more than a car’s worth because of depreciation, especially if you have to scrap the battery rather than repair it.
Electric cars that sustain minor bumps are also being kept 50ft apart in repair yards over fears they might explode, adding to insurance bills.
Government guidelines recommend electric vehicles with damaged batteries should be “quarantined” from other vehicles due to the risk of battery fires.
Thatcham Research said insurers would need to spend an additional £900m a year on quarantine facilities for damaged cars as a result of the safety measures by 2035, as more battery-powered vehicles take to the roads.
Its a serious problem. I have been thinking about getting an EV because my current car is getting to end of life, but I can’t see doing it in present circumstances. I do not wish to take the small chance of a fire, I can’t see paying the huge insurance premiums, even if you can find an underwriter. You have the range and recharging time issue, and they cost far more to buy in the first place. And unlike with ICE, if you buy used, the thing you most need to know, the health of the battery, you have no way of assessing. It just doesn’t make sense.
It seems likely that as there are more EVs in use it will turn out that the very infrequent fires become larger numerically, and there will be one or two really catastrophic fires, like on a ferry, in a high rise apartment block garage, on a crowded narrow residential street lined both sides with parked cars. The reaction to just one of those will be extreme. And its not if, its when, as numbers increase and as the installed base ages.
The insurance companies are not stupid. Who do you think is going to pay when your car takes out half your street? They are voting with their policies and saying, not us. Or they are setting prices so high that no-one can afford to take it up.
This is not going to work at scale. We are not going to just replace ICE with EVs and carry on as normal.
A couple of weeks ago I was driving home from vacation. I was following an SUV, about 5 or 6 car lengths back at 75mph. The SUV straddled a dead animal in the road. As a result, when I first spotted the animal it was about 120 feet in front of me, in the center of the lane. No chance to dodge.
While going under the car, it punctured a hole in the gas tank, big enough to drain the tank in less than 20 minutes.
Because of the recent UAW strike, it took almost a week to get a new tank, but once it arrived it took 2 hours to replace it.
Had my car been an EV, what are the odds that the damage to the battery would have resulted in the car being totalled? For that matter, what are the odds that having the battery penetrated in the way the tank was, would have resulted in a battery fire?
I wonder which EV fanatic down voted this post?
Looks to me like actual figures depend on the source of information
Like this…
Tesla Fire
https://www.tesla-fire.com
All Reported Tesla Fires | Tesla Fire
From here… https://www.tesla-fire.com/
Or this…
<quote>How frequent are EV fires?
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR4ZyKN973DtGnMM20D-8_d4SDPdmX_GZnBu7yWHji8rOD-P77eKGo7yYM&s
With an average of 16 EV and hybrid fires per year, there’s a 1 in 38,000 chance of fire.Jul 11, 2023
</quote>
https://www.motortrend.com › you-…
You’re Wrong About EV Fires – MotorTrend
Teslas says 204 in 2023
Motor Trend says 16 per year
Damn blockquote appended to quote…c’est la vie
Do these figures take into account the fact that ICE cars have spent decades on the road, whereas EV’s have only been introduced recently? A better metric would be fires per 100 000 miles driven.
I’d like to see spontaneous combustion statistics.
This.
Plus there is another factor to consider – the user’s part in the fire.
Most ICE fires are the result of a crash. How many crashes are the result of human factors? Probably the vast majority.
In which case we (the user) has the ability to influence the likelihood of the fire.
This appears very much not what is happening with EV fires. Here we have the same human factor issues on the likelihood side of the risk equation – PLUS the unavoidable spontaneous issue.
On the consequence side, all we can do to mitigate is park remotely from home, manage battery charging properly etc.
Apparently a lot of ICV fires are deliberately set. The car is stolen for a joy ride, or to commit a crime, then torched when no longer needed, in order to destroy the evidence.
How many ICE vehicles spontaneously combust? Exactly 0. And even that may be too high. However, EV vehicles do spontaneously combust.
How many ICE vehicles spontaneously combust when refueling? Exactly 0. The only way they can catch fire when refueling is because someone did something unsafe while doing it, like smoking. However, EV vehicles do spontaneously combust when recharging.
ICE vehicles only catch fire by accidents or stupidity; EV vehicles can catch fire even if the person does everything right. More ICE vehicles on the road mean more accidents, which means more chances of fire. Your own chart itself proves EV are less safe because hybrids — vehicles with the same but smaller batteries as EV — have the most fires of all! There are more hybrids on the road than EV’s.
Of course, you know this. But in your zeal to defend the indefensible, you purposefully chose a misleading statistic. One of the first things that is taught in a college statistic course is how to deceive people with stats. I well remember my college stats teacher showing us how to do this. His purpose was to prove you cannot trust statistics.
Exactly.
‘There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.’
As written by Mark Twain.
Liberals of all forms lie by nature, and as it CAGW and EV fires, MUN is just a liberal doing what liberals do.
Even doing something stupid like smoking is unlikely to set a car on fire.
The fumes coming out of the filler tube are heavier than air, so they sink. Not likely to come in contact with the cigarette. Beyond that, even if the fumes did ignite, there would just be a whoosh as the fumes ignited, and that would be it. There is not enough heat in such a flash over to lite anything else on fire. The fire would not go down the fueling pipe and light the gas in the tank on fire. There is little to no oxygen inside the tank. It won’t burn.
About the only way to create a problem while fueling, would be to spill several gallons and have most of it go under the car, then drop your cigarette into the puddle.
Throw a lit cigarette in a puddle of gas. Betcha it won’t cause a gasoline fire. It will just put out the cigarette.
Ok, so how many of those gas-fueled vehicles caught fire while sitting in a garage?
And what does it take to extinguish an EV fire vs. ICE? <– That is something that never seems to be taken into account with these comparisons.
Look what it’s based on.
A valid number would be based on the number of cars on the road.
An invalid number would be based on the number of cars sold.
An even more invalid number would be based on the total value of all cars sold.
Heck, we don’t even know if this is based on new cars sold, or all cars sold, which would include used car sales.
Age isn’t just deterioration caused by mileage either. Newer ICE cars have “better” fuel systems than older cars, less prone to leakage. That is a primary cause of ICE fires, a carb or gas filter leaking gas onto the engine where it can be ignited by something like a “leaking” ignition system (i.e. a loose spark plug wire).
An easy comparison of almost any single thing associated with automobiles is quite likely wrong, be it mileage, age, number sold, etc. If you can’t account for all the factors then you are lying with statistics.
And what do the experts say? (/sarc)
Emma Thompson, Stephen Fry and Ben Okri have joined the former archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and leading climate scientists to highlight what they describe as a “collective act of madness” that is driving “the destruction of life on Earth”.
A letter signed by more than 100 actors, authors, scientists and academics says the UK government is ignoring the scientific reality of the climate and ecological crisis
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/24/actors-and-academics-criticise-uk-over-climate-madness-and-limits-on-protest
Nutters all
If they sent their letter to the Guardian then at least they weren’t expecting many people to see it.
That’s just as well – the Grauniad is nothing more than a collective of loonies..
I wonder if all 100 have only EVs, won’t get in jets, live in “tiny homes”, walk whenever possible or bike, each no meat? I don’t care what excuse such people have- if they don’t live an extremely small carbon footprint lifestyle, then they’re no dam good hypocrites. And nutters.
They see themselves as being part of the elite. The restrictions that they want for the rest of you, were never intended to apply to them.
In total, the number of EV fires per vehicle does not exceed the fire rate for ICE vehicles.
Talk about understatement !… in fact the risk per vehicle for gasoline or diesel fueled vehicles is 20 times that of EVs. Yet WUWT keeps touting EV fires all the time as if they were more common or present more of a risk.
Not only do EV fires occur vastly less often per gas or diesel vehicle fires, but they are far less dangerous to humans. They don’t explode, they don’t pour flammable liquids all over the occupants like liquid fossil fuel vehicles do, they don’t emit vapors that stay within the passenger compartment. They burn for hours because they burn far more slowly that gasoline or diesel fires, giving occupants far more time to get out of the vehicle before they are burned to death inside as is typical of gas or diesel vehicle fires. They also don’t spread vehicle to vehicle like gasoline or diesel fires.
Just a few years ago here in Southwest Florida, a fire broke out in a rental car sitting within a vast field where thousands of rental cars were being stored preparatory to being relocated. When one vehicle caught fire, it exploded and caused the vehicles around it to burn, and eventually nearly all 5,000+ vehicles in that field were destroyed by fire. Fire fighters could do nothing but watch the conflagration. EVs can’t do that.
As to hydrogen vehicle fires, again, this article is grossly misrepresentative of the risks of hydrogen powered FCVs. Airships are not cars.
Airships are large rigid envelopes filled with hydrogen gas at the same pressure as surrounding ambient air. When a rip in that envelope occurs, as happened with the Hindenburg, ambient air enters the envelope at a near perfect ratio of fuel to air (the flammable range of hydrogen is 4% to 76% concentration), and all it takes is a source of ignition to cause a fire. The Hindenburg did not explode, it burned, and the majority of people on board survived despite the airship being well above ground.
On the other hand, with fossil fuel powered aircraft, the second highest source of occupant fatalities, after trauma, is fire from on board fuels. Which is why airliners that suffer mechanical failures will always try to dump fuel or burn up fuel in the air before attempting a risky landing. The power of aircraft fuel fires was of course fully demonstrated on 9.11.01, taking down two towers and killing thousands.
FCVs contain a small amount of highly compressed hydrogen (up to 10,000 psi) that is 100% hydrogen. It literally cannot burn. If there is a leak of hydrogen from the fuel system, only 100% hydrogen exits, again inflammable, and being far lighter in density than air, immediately disperses upwards and away from the passenger compartment and the vehicle itself before it can burn – something that gasoline or diesel fumes do not do because they are heavier than air.
A hydrogen powered FCV, like EVs, are vastly safer than any ECVs.
Which EV do you have?
Why does it matter?
Sounds like you like EVs and agree with the policies that will force EVs on all of us, so I just assume you have one or plan to buy one soon.
“Do as I say, not as I do.” must be your motto.
An internal combustion engine fire can be put out quickly. Not so with an electic vehicle fire.
I’m trying to figure out where Duh-wayne gets the notion that battery fires are gentle and slow spreading.
“They don’t explode, they don’t pour flammable liquids all over the occupants like liquid fossil fuel vehicles do”
Once again, you miss the total context. This only happens in accidents. And accidents are where EV fires are just as likely as for an ICV.
The BIG issue is that EV’s catch fire when not being operated, such as when charging while parked in someone’s garage. How often does this happen to an ICV?
Even in accidents, ICV don’t pour flammable liquids all over the occupants. That never happens.
“ They also don’t spread vehicle to vehicle like gasoline or diesel fires.”
Say what? What caused the multiple cars on that transport ship to catch fire? Or the electric buses? Or the secret service cars?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiL9_qN6dyCAxUxAjQIHWYRAMsQwqsBegQIDxAG&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DT71cVhxG_v4&usg=AOvVaw3h3iDqqFcA9Whl5yHDrQCX&opi=89978449
EV’s don’t explode and don’t emit vapours?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLtkTp4GVuE&t=0s
EV’s burn more slowly?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm0ASYNYxZQ
Any more pearls of wisdom?
Give him time. He can’t make up this stuff that fast.
They don’t explode
Neither do ICEs. It’s a Hollywood myth. Unless there is something inherently explosive in the vehicle (i.e. a propane tank) it isn’t going to happen. The gasoline isn’t sufficiently vaporized and pressurized for that to happen.
When Duane decides to completely lose touch with reality he goes all out.
First off he repeats the many times refuted lie that EVs have fewer fires than ICVs.
Then he gets really looney tunes.
ICVs don’t explode. That only happens in Hollywood. They also don’t splash fuel all over the occupants. Duane actually seems to believe that his fevered imagination is somehow superior to reality.
EVs burn more slowly than ICVs? Once again, Duane is just making up whatever argument he needs.
As to Duane’s example of a car in a field. Those were EV cars that burned.
As to the risks of hydrogen, Duane is once again substituting bad logic for reality. Yes, cars aren’t dirigibles. So what. dirigibles didn’t try to store hydrogen at several hundred atmospheres of pressure, which makes cars even more dangerous. I notice Duane doesn’t bother to discuss the issues with leakage and embrittlement.
Of course safety doesn’t matter when you are saving the world
.
Getting roasted alive in your car is just the risk we’re gonna have to take to save the planet! /sarc
EVs are fiery but mostly peaceful.
From one of the links in this WUWT article by Steve Goreham, I find the following quotes:
“A May 2023 report by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency found vehicles powered by internal combustion engines were 20 times more likely to catch fire than electric vehicles in Sweden.
Out of Sweden’s 611,000 electric vehicles, 23 fires (0.004%) were reported. The fleet of 4.4 million petrol and diesel vehicles recorded 3,400 fires (0.08%).
Fire and road safety incident rates are higher for e-scooters and e-bikes. In the first half of 2023, EV Firesafe data show they accounted for more than 500 battery fires, 138 injuries and 36 deaths worldwide. Over the same six months, 35 electric vehicle battery fires resulted in eight injuries and four deaths.
The higher risk for e-scooters and e-bikes is mainly linked to poor-quality battery design and construction, and the use of unapproved chargers.
Electric cars and trucks use the same battery technology but have more sophisticated designs. Advanced cooling systems keep their batteries at optimal temperatures during everyday driving and recharging. This makes them much safer than batteries in e-scooters and e-bikes.”
https://theconversation.com/electric-vehicle-fires-are-very-rare-the-risk-for-petrol-and-diesel-vehicles-is-at-least-20-times-higher-213468
Once again I will emphasize that one can always find both positive and negative aspects in most situations. One problem to be addressed is quantifying the positive and negative outcomes, and determining which is greater.
For example, when the use of fossil fuels became widespread in the UK, many decades ago, there was terrible ‘real’ pollution causing significant, polluting haze, in cities and the surroundings. I’m old enough to recall that when I was a teenager.
We adressed the problem by government-enforced emission controls. The emission control technology continues to progress, and the cleanest coal-fired power stations are now the UltraSuperCritical variety, which operate at very high temperatures and are much more efficient, emitting less pollutants.
Here’s an article which details the latest Chinese developments in ultrasupercritical technology.
“Pingshan Phase II, a cutting-edge 1.35-GW ultrasupercritical coal-fired unit, achieves a remarkable net efficiency of 49.37%—making it the world’s most efficient coal-fired power plant. The state-of-the-art plant, which commenced operations in April 2022, utilizes mature 600C materials and equipment, showcasing the transformative potential of innovation in the realm of coal power.”
https://www.powermag.com/chinas-pingshan-phase-ii-sets-new-bar-as-worlds-most-efficient-coal-power-plant/
The point I’m making here, is that we shouldn’t scrap a useful technology just because it has a few negative, or harmful problems. Instead, science and technology strive to solve the negative problems so we can all benefit from the positive outcomes.
Likewise with BEVs. There’s currently a problem of spontaneous combustion. If you think this is unsolvable, then you don’t have much faith in scientific progress.
“The point I’m making here, is that we shouldn’t scrap a useful technology just because it has a few negative, or harmful problems.”
Then, if you imagine there is a solution, trot it out. Otherwise you are just engaging in crystal-ball gazing. Do you imagine that simply because a problem exists that the universe will automatically permit a solution? You seem blind to the notion that some problems have no useful solution.
Predicting the future is not possble in a scientific world. The fact that there has been scientiic progress in the past does not automatically mean that there will be such progress in the future.
They are not the same fires. That is the problem. If you have half the number of fires but each one is ten times as dangerous, it doesn’t help that they are less frequent. And if they are also unpredictable in timing (the spontaneous ones).
Do you want one in your attached garage hooked up to an overnight charger? The chances of spontaneous ignition are very small indeed. But if it happens, it burns your house down.
An ICE, chances of spontaneous ignition are just about zero. Which will you choose? And good luck explaining your choice to your wife!
When you have no shame, you can always use bad data to support any position you want.
Just comparing number of cars without compensating for the many other factors is highly dishonest.
There are only two reasons to repeatedly use such invalid numbers. Ignorance or dishonesty. Which is it in your case.
There are numerous posts above detailing the many problems with these claims so I won’t bore you with yet another repetition. Though no doubt the next time this issue comes up, these same lies will have to be shot down again.
As to having faith in scientific progress, I’m still waiting for fusion, anti-gravity and warp drive.
Just declaring that a problem can be solved, just because you want it to be solved, doesn’t actually solve the problem.
How about we hold off on mandating that only EVs may be sold, until AFTER we solve this spontaneous combustion problem.
BTW, the problem with ICV exhaust was solved some 50 years ago.
You forgot the transporter. Then, except for the pleasure of seeing the scenery, you can just beam from here to there.
Not to mention 3 ships carrying EVs from Europe to NA catching fire and sinking – insurance is likely to stop this nonsense
When kid’s toys cause 10 deaths they are immediately banned by the Federal Trade Commission as a horrible hazard. You cannot buy lawn darts anymore precisely because of this reason.
Why do E-Bikes get a pass? The hypocrisy is enormous.
While we are at it:
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/07/07/study-suvs-are-indeed-death-machines-for-children-blacks
Guess we should ban them too – but cars are always sacred, right?
SUVs are racist, who knew. I was going to ask why you waste time on such poorly designed “studies”, but then I remembered that you actually believe that CO2 is a bad thing.
Just to pile on: The lower economic classes may one day be forced to buy used EVs. They will be carrying minimal insurance as dictated by their finances. First, the battery will not be maintained properly by many. Secondly, when they get in a fender-bender or roll over a curb and crack the battery case, what will they do? Spend thousands for a new battery? Junk the car and buy another used EV? Keep driving despite a damaged battery? Ok, we can expect many to take the last option. What will that do to the rate of EV fires? No one in the green movement has really thought all this through in a realistic fashion.
10’s of thousands for a new battery
“Nuclear power plants have suffered famous disasters such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, when cooling systems have failed.” Not strictly true, Chernobyl was human errr, the technicians turned off part of the system I believe whilst doing some tests. TMI was similar (?)
Fukushima, when the earthquake struck it was in the process of shutting down as it was meant to, unfortunately the tsunami came and shorted out the batteries driving the safety interlocking mechanism.
Because of the known dangers of nuclear power, it’s probably the safest.
The underlying theme of this article is that most of our political leaders can’t be trusted to make decisions based on logic and easily available evidence. Our leaders have become a threat to our ongoing existence. And as we live in democracies we have only ourselves to blame for the incompetence of our leaders. Perhaps we should all adopt a greater sense of responsibility the next time we are given a chance to line up and vote.