38% of cars sold in China are now electric, Sinopec says the ICE is doomed

[Comrade]

Fire statistics are like rollover statistics. They are almost completely useless. Even when collected and reported properly.

Unrelated factors in both fires and rollovers are overwhelmingly the cause of both fires and rollovers. That's why Mustangs, Camaros and Corvettes rollover far more often than any other vehicle, even those with very high center of gravity.

It's a classic case of confusing correlation with causation.

 

[Hillhater]

You seem to be someone who's unfamiliar with gasoline-- um, "petrol".

And you seem to be someone who is unfamiliar with fire fighting techniques.
ask any professional Fire fighter !

 

[Hillhater]

*Sweden, who saw mass adoption of EVs, now shows that about 40% of the cars on their roads are BEVs, or Battery Electric Vehicles, and has more knowledge and data about EVs than the U.S.

Jeezz !……
..just how do you figure a country with less than 5 million cars total, (< 300k EVs), has more knowledge and data than a country with 270 m total (3+ million EVs) ?

 

[jonescg]

It's true. Hybrids have a higher rate of fires per km travelled than ICE and EVs. Still pretty uncommon but not ideal.

 

[classicalgas]

Jeezz !……
..just how do you figure a country with less than 5 million cars total, (< 300k EVs), has more knowledge and data than a country with 270 m total (3+ million EVs) ?

That's a quote, not a statement by me....and, as usual for you, you edited it.. Here's the complete quote...

*Sweden, who saw mass adoption of EVs, now shows that about 40% of the cars on their roads are BEVs, or Battery Electric Vehicles, and has more knowledge and data about EVs than the U.S. As an example, in Sweden, between 2018 and 2022, only 29 EVs and 52 hybrids were reported to have caught fire. On average, battery-powered vehicles, including EVs and hybrids, accounted for only 1.9 percent of all passenger vehicle fires in Sweden annually, with the majority of vehicle fires involving gas- and diesel-powered cars*

*Roughly, in that case, gas-powered cars are 51 times more likely to catch fire than EVs. Yes, some of this has to do with the fact that electric cars on the road are often newer than some of their internal-combustion engine-powered counterparts, since most EVs have been on the road for the most part since 2012*.

I have yet to see any credible study that shows hybrids starting on fire less than EVs.

The point is, that even if we don't have statistically solid studies, a 50x-60x differential between ICE fires and EV fires in the data available makes it extremely unlikely that EVs are catching fire at anywhere close to the rate ICE cars are.

 

[neptronix]

Back to the thread's topic:

MSN

"Japanese car factories in Thailand — which for decades has been the premiere hub of auto manufacturing in Southeast Asia — are shutting down or scaling back.

Subaru said it will stop producing cars at its plant this month. Suzuki plans to cease operations by the end of 2025. And Honda and Nissan say they are reducing production.

The primary culprit: Chinese electric vehicles.

As the world embraces zero-emission vehicles, Thailand has been courting Chinese automakers, which in their quest for global dominance have spent more than $1.4 billion here as of last year to build EV factories.

“Japanese automakers are under significant pressure to cut costs to compete with Chinese brands,” said Larey Yoopensuk, chairman of the Federation of Thailand Automobile Workers. “They are now questioning whether staying in Thailand is still worthwhile.”

Thailand's government — which wants 30% of the cars it produces to be electric by 2030 — sees Chinese investment as a crucial piece of the future of its auto industry, which now accounts for 800,000 jobs and 10% of the country's GDP."

 

[jonescg]

I do hope the USA can get access to affordable EVs, but I also hope the USA can find a way of avoiding the need for transport, and shifting modes ahead of electrification of private automobiles.

 

[neptronix]

I have no hope for change here :/

I honestly think our government across both conservative and liberal administrations have been doing whatever it can to prevent alternative energy and EVs from becoming a thing here.

For an example of what i mean, check out this history of what the USA has done to hamper solar panel sales:
Solar panel import tariffs are affecting the industry by increasing prices by up to 286%

We still only manufacture solar cells in limited quantities, there's basically never been a real industry to protect. They'll use any excuse they can to keep us using fossil fuel on a large scale.

Look what happened here the second the Chinese decided they wanted to sell us electric cars, boom, huge tarrif out of th eblue.

As an American you can buy loads of stuff from China with no tarrifs until now, our government will even subsidize the shipping. But god forbid you buy something that gets us closer to being electrified here.

The pattern continues!

This country is gonna be a way late adopter. Tell your electric revolution i said hi, also, lol.

 

[Hillhater]

That's a quote, not a statement by me

Well, if it was, you really should have put it in a quote box, or at least in parenthese, otherwise i might just think it was you making a fool of yourself again !
And why post it anyway if you do not agree with the information ?

The point is, that even if we don't have statistically solid studies, a 50x-60x differential between ICE fires and EV fires in the data available makes it extremely unlikely that EVs are catching fire at anywhere close to the rate ICE cars are.

NO ! Without accurate data, you cannot say any such thing.
Infact you seem unable or unwilling to accept the errors that have been pointed out.

 

[Hillhater]

It's true. Hybrids have a higher rate of fires per km travelled than ICE and EVs.

What data source are you using ?

 

[Comrade]

What data source are you using ?

I read a study that you have a 0% chance of getting anywhere when arguing online with someone completely loony tunes. Isn't it obvious?

 

[classicalgas]

Well, if it was, you really should have put it in a quote box, or at least in parenthese, otherwise i might just think it was you making a fool of yourself again !
And why post it anyway if you do not agree with the information ?

NO ! Without accurate data, you cannot say any such thing.
Infact you seem unable or unwilling to accept the errors that have been pointed out.

I used asterisks, which put a quote in italics in most forums I frequent..not this one, evidently...and you still edited it to distort the meaning.

Are you frocking joking? When you have fire departments reporting car fires, and ICE fires are fifty times as frequent as EV fires in those reports ( even after accounting for relative number of each on the road) you think that doesn't show what ICE cars are more likely to catch fire than EVs?

Go ahead, try to come up with a reasonable alternate explanation.

 

[harrisonpatm]

Are you frocking joking? When you have fire departments reporting car fires, and ICE fires are fifty times as frequent as EV fires in those reports ( even after accounting for relative number of each on the road) you think that doesn't show what ICE cars are more likely to catch fire than EVs?

That's not what Hillhater is saying. What he (and I) were trying to communicate, was that that the data is questionable.

So far you have quoted the exact same passage from an article from electrifynews.com 3 separate times in this thread. After you did it twice, I pointed out that electrifynews.com does not source the Swedish study. Your response was to quote the passage a third time.

So I found the original PDF of the 2018-2023 Swedish MSB study and translated sections to show you how the study does not at all show that EV's have lower rates of fire than ICE. In post #98 I showed how every "article" stating that EV's have lower rates of fire only source the flawed AutoInsuranceEZ data or the MSB study, and that's it. And I pointed out how the Swedish paper even states that the statistics are too varied to make any definitive statements.

And yet you continue to stick to data that has been shown to be, at the very least, statistically questionable, if not outright flawed. Instead of responded to that, you continue to insist on your "fifty times as frequent, 40% of Swedish vehicles are EVs, ect" and expect us to take your word. That's not science, data, or statistics. It's just dogma if you're not willing to accept alternative evidence that might conflict with your own.

I really do apologize to you, and others reading this thread, if I'm beating a dead horse on this topic, but this particular argument has been bothering me for awhile, because it's a really great example of confirmation bias and lack of scientific literacy.

 

[Chalo]

It doesn't matter whose data you use; any of it shows a grossly lopsided proportion of ICE vehicle fires compared to BEV fires. And of course hybrids would be even more likely to burn because they inherit the failure modes of both.

 

[Comrade]

lack of scientific literacy.

More like lack of of knowing the difference between causation and correlation.

Fire statistics are like rollover statistics. They are almost completely useless. Even when collected and reported properly.

Unrelated factors in both fires and rollovers are overwhelmingly the cause of both fires and rollovers. That's why Mustangs, Camaros and Corvettes rollover far more often than any other vehicle, even those with very high center of gravity.

It's a classic case of confusing correlation with causation.

 

[jonescg]

The argument that our data isn't as good as it ought to be, therefore cannot be used at all, is pretty dumb.
But some people are just born contrarians, and take great delight in engaging in bad faith arguments. Even if it contradicts previous positions.
But, if it succeeds in delaying the uptake of battery EVs, mission accomplished I guess? Otherwise, why get so animated about it?

 

[jonescg]

As far as Australia's best data is concerned, EV Firesafe have been collecting the best data they can. We're up to EV fire number 9, in about 10 years, and probably 6 billion electric vehicle kilometres travelled. The insurance council of Australia is using this data when they summarise the risk associated with electric cars, rechargeable tools, ebikes and scooters. EVs rank as very low risk in comparison to ebikes, simply due to the higher QC in automotive manufacturing.
There's a webinar coming up in January looking into the risks of fire and risk management for Motorsport with EVs. I highly recommend you dial into it. I'll share the link when I get it.

 

[neptronix]

Even if EVs were to catch fire 2x more per mile that ICE, people wouldn't give a crap because it would become socially normalized instead of being the scary new thing.

Look at the modern person's house. It's full of lithium powered gadgets. Most people have at least one in their pocket right now.



Airlines and their associated regulatory bodies going, we dunno what to do, i guess we'll just deal with it.

If this can get normalized, the worst case scenario with cars will also be normalized.

Worst case for electric cars: don't get safer, the dangers get normalized
Best case for electric cars: the safety improves, now gasoline cars look extremely dangerous by comparison, since they cannot get safer to match.

 

[harrisonpatm]

The argument that our data isn't as good as it ought to be, therefore cannot be used at all, is pretty dumb.

That's not the argument. The argument is that 2, only 2, papers circulate to 20+ blog "articles" and opinion pieces, all saying the same thing, and it's interpreted as "lots of data." It's not lots of data, but it's perceived as lots of data because it shows up as 20 different hits on a google search all citing the same thing.

Otherwise, why get so animated about it?

It's a problem about scientific literacy in our society, and I believe it's important to address. Point taken though, I certainly get disproportionately worked up about this one thing, and that's my problem, I probably shouldn't try to convince people who clearly aren't going to be convinced.

 

[jonescg]

Well all I can say is that the motivation to get high quality data has never been stronger. Remember, any technology that challenges the status quo must not just be as good, but an order of magnitude better on as many levels as practical, in order to win hearts and minds. That goes for the responses to 'yeahbuts' too. We will get better data, and I am quietly confident that EVs will continue to demonstrate their safety and quality.
Then we wait for the next goalpost shift to occur...

 

[neptronix]

I think the last goalposts is going the be the effect of large worldwide mining once we're halfway through the adoption curve.
And we'll argue whether oil or mining is better. And oil supporters will suddenly pose as environmentalists for the sake of argument. But they'll be driving EVs themselves about a decade after we're done arguing that additional point.

First, they laugh at you..

 

[Hillhater]

I used asterisks, which put a quote in italics in most forums I frequent..not this one, evidently...and you still edited it to distort the meaning.

You have been using this forum long enough to understand how quotes are inserted.
You posted a statement to support your belief in ICE fire rates, but that data is not only obviously incorrect but you continue to support and repeat them.
? How is that distorting the meaning ?

 

[classicalgas]

You have been using this forum long enough to understand how quotes are inserted.
You posted a statement to support your belief in ICE fire rates, but that data is not only obviously incorrect but you continue to support and repeat them.
? How is that distorting the meaning ?

You consistently focus on details to nitpick, edit quotes to distort meaning, and quote sketchy sources... that's your brand.

You quoted only part of my source quote, distorting it's meaning....that's your typical style of argument, you do it with everyone, in every thread you troll.

 

[classicalgas]

From NTSB publication... "Investigations of EV fFires"

"Observation #5: Current EV Population"

Tesla
• ~ 350,000
• 17+ fires (0.005%)

Nissan Leaf
• > 300K
• No known battery fires in service


Chevrolet Volt
• > 200 K
• No known primary battery fires in service

BMW i3
• ~ 100 K
• At least 3 fires

Evidently the NTSB does keep some sort of track of EV fires.

 

[classicalgas]

“The overall arching takeaway (from the data) is that the rate of fires happening is less for EVs than petrol or diesel cars, and quite substantially,” said James Edmondson, Research Director at Cambridge, England-based independent researcher IDTechEx in an interview"


"Edmondson said various surveys showed EVs represented far less of the reported fires than might be expected given their market share. Estimates by the Phosphorous, Inorganic & Nitrogen Flame Retardants Association reported 55 fires per billion miles traveled in ICE vehicles and five fires per billion for EVs."

"Tesla has reported that between 2012 and 2021 there was approximately one Tesla vehicle fire for every 210 million miles travelled. This includes fires that did not originate in the vehicle, like arson, structure fires etc. According to the National Fire Protection Association, the national average in the U.S. was one fire per 19 million miles travelled. This suggests Tesla’s EVs are 11 times less likely to catch fire than the average car,” Edmondson said."

from here...https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2024/04/21/electric-vehicles-not-guilty-of-excess-short-term-fire-risk-charges/.