Eu U-turn on petrol cars

Status
Not open for further replies.
Andy J said:
Don't worry folks we'll all be running around in ICEs for years to come on cheap Venezuelan oil thanks to dear old Trump. ;)
Click to expand...
Yup. The big loser here is Canada. We’ve lost our only bargaining chip. Venezuela has the same heavy bitumen needed for diesel and Jet A1, and once the US takes back US owned refineries stolen from the communist regime, it will mean Canada goes third world.
 
Laverdalothar said:
tons of sources if you simply look for "how often do EV cars burn compared to conventional cars":
Click to expand...
Once again... where did your number of 60 come from? It seems numbers are just thrown around like confetti with no actual thought given to the meaning behind them. Refer to my points re the Swedish study - specifically, that there was no filtering by *cause* of fire, nor balancing by the age of the vehicles. Over here at least, almost every car that gets stolen ends up deliberately set on fire to remove any forensic evidence (also presumably just for the anti-social nature of it). By those Swedish stats that makes an ICE car "more likely" to catch fire but it is clearly a misrepresentation.
By the way, all links to the original Swedish article I've tried to follow looking into this now 404-out at the Swedish MSB / CDRA, so the original version of this report has been moved or removed. It would be interesting to find it to go to the actual source. The most grounded article I found and used for my numbers quoted earlier was here:
www.swinburne.edu.au

Electric vehicle fires are very rare. The risk for petrol and diesel vehicles is at least 20 times higher

Two electric vehicle fires have been reported in Australia this week. Five cars were destroyed after a lithium battery ignited in a car parked at Sydney Airport on Monday. Firefighters believed the battery had been detached from the car because it was damaged.
www.swinburne.edu.au
It is a respected Aussie University-ish type of thing, so I would have at least some confidence that the rates they quote there do at least correlate to the original Swedish paper. But as mentioned, the links in that Swinburne article no longer lead back to the source of the data.
Laverdalothar said:

Electric Vehicle Fires: How Often Do They Really Occur?

"Electric cars catch fire faster than conventional vehicles" is a common misconception with little to no evidence to support it. The opposite is true.
www.dekra.com www.dekra.com
(DEKRA is a competing institute of the German TÜV/MOT)

firerover.com

How Often Do Electric Cars Catch Fire? | Fire Rover

Get the facts on how often electric cars catch fire. See what causes them, and how industries can safeguard themselves in this FireRover Guide.
firerover.com firerover.com
Click to expand...
The DEKRA article has no stats at all.
The other one is completely vague, and quotes no sources, here is the relevant blurb and once again it doesn't stand up to even the slightest form of reasoned analysis.
How Common Are EV Fires?

Here’s what current studies say — EV fires, while dramatic, are significantly less frequent than those in gasoline-powered vehicles:
  • All-electric vehicles experience about 25 fires per 100,000 sold, compared to 1,530 fires per 100,000 for gasoline cars
  • In Sweden, EVs and hybrids caught fire at a rate of 3.8 fires per 100,000 vehicles, whereas combustion-engine cars caught fire at 68 per 100,000, making ICE vehicles nearly 29x more likely to ignite.
  • Studies spanning 2010–2020 saw EV battery fire rates at 0.0012%, compared to 0.1% for internal combustion engine (ICE) cars.
  • In Poland, EVs and ICE vehicles had equal incident rates—approximately 0.23 fires per 1,000 registered vehicles.
Click to expand...

The Swedish study with the flawed data is mentioned again, I will presume for now that the other figures are similarly cherry-picked. The 3.8/100,000 is the same as what I quoted above, however this one says 68/100,000 whereas the figures I found said 77/100,000?? But then they say that ICE is "29x more likely to ignite". But 68/3.8=18 not 29. So even with massively distorted data something like this cannot even do the basic arithmetic correctly. That incorrect and misrepresented 29 has then been conveniently doubled and rounded up to reach 60 for the purposes of your arguments Lothar! :D

And that is just my point about the whole fire risk thing, the numbers being thrown around at present do not give any indication to me about the real comparative risk of a vehicle I buy burning my house down.
 
Steve, statistics may differ from country to country. Not sure if the swedish study covers sweden only or worldwide numbers.

At the end, it doesn't matter. Even if it is "just" 20 times more likely: If you have the choice between two plains to fly with and one has a 20 times higher chance to crash - which one do you chose? ;)
 
[QUOTE="Laverdalothar, post: 579741, member: 34
If you have the choice between two plains to fly with and one has a 20 times higher chance to crash - which one do you chose? ;)
[/QUOTE]

I’ve managed to stay out of this, up until now, but unless the statistics are balanced for numbers of the particular model flying, the total airframe and engine hours, the operator and maintenance contractor’s nationality, whether it has operated in conflict zones and many other factors, the simple “20 times more likely” is specious.
Bottom line, I’d be happiest if I was flying it.
 
Years ago I had to fly to Paris several times a year. Cheapest flights were with Lufthansa, with a Focker50. ANY time I booked that flight, the plain had an issue wich delayed the flights or even caused them to be canceled. At the end, my boss asked me to take the more expensive flight, which was safer and more in time.

will I ever fly with a Focker50 again? Hell, no! Neither as a pilot (which I am not) nor as a passenger. The probability of technical issues were simply to high.
 
another point is, how reliable are both categories of cars (who has less break-downs). The German ADAC (road assistance providing car club) claimst that - based on SAME AGED cars and based on a per 1000 car base, EV cars had 8,5 defect cars that needed road assistance, ICE cars had 12,9/1.000 cars., wich is 50% more likely to break down with a non EV car of the same age than with an EV car: (sorry - it's in German...)

www.adac.de

ADAC Pannenstatistik 2025: Sind Elektroautos zuverlässiger?

Die Bilanz der ADAC Pannenhilfe zeigt, welche Pkw am häufigsten liegen bleiben. Elektroautos erscheinen zunehmend solider als Verbrenner.
www.adac.de www.adac.de
 
It`s not flying that concerns me .......it`s the crashing ..........

It`s not 60 times less likely to catch fire that concerns me ....... it`s the 20 times harder to put the fire out .......



Info sourced from LDLAS ................... ( Lies , Damned Lies , And Statistics ) ............
 
Last edited:
Laverdalothar said:
Years ago I had to fly to Paris several times a year. Cheapest flights were with Lufthansa, with a Focker50. ANY time I booked that flight, the plain had an issue wich delayed the flights or even caused them to be canceled. At the end, my boss asked me to take the more expensive flight, which was safer and more in time.

will I ever fly with a Focker50 again? Hell, no! Neither as a pilot (which I am not) nor as a passenger. The probability of technical issues were simply to high.
Click to expand...
Unreliable Fockers the lot of them!
 
Perhaps of some concern to those on the ground, aircraft with Lithium Ion batteries are designed so that, in a case of thermal runaway, the battery melts its locating brackets and drops through the outer skin, away from the aircraft.
As my old instructor was fond of pointing out "The Fire Brigade's ladders don't reach up to 40,000 ft."
 
rocketonarail said:
It`s not flying that concerns me .......it`s the crashing ..........

It`s not 60 times less likely to catch fire that concerns me ....... it`s the 20 times harder to put the fire out .......



Info sourced from LDLAS ................... ( Lies , Damned Lies , And Statistics ) ............
Click to expand...
I had a go at hang gliding and it occurred to me flying is safe at height- it’s the last fifteen feet that kill everyone.
 
That means only one in every 625 Chinese has one ..... gotta do better than that if we`re going to save the planet ........

C`mon all you Ozzies , Chinese and Argentinians .......... pull your fingers out and get mining that Lithium , the world depends on it ........ :unsure: .............


Better hurry up .... only 125 years worth of the stuff left at current usage levels .......... so If EV ( and `phone and laptop etc ) sales quadruple , then that`s only 30 years worth of it left ..........

( Source : Dept of LDLAS ..... plus my CSE Grade One mathematics .... ) .................


.... bleedin` `ell ....... What are we going to do when all the Lithium runs out ? ........... Go back to oil , I guess ? .........
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top