Concerns raised about EV vehicles and batteries stored in Bangkok after intense Chatuchak fire

[JBChiangRai]

16 minutes ago, BenStark said:

If you say so

 

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/electric-vehicle/

 

https://www.kbb.com/car-advice/is-there-any-difference-in-electric-car-insurance/

 

Most flawed study I ever saw, and of course could only be brought up by a desperate EV fanboy.

 

First of all, cars recalled doesn't mean they caught fire.

 

Who would have thought that there are more ICE fires, because there is only ONE EV for every 250 cars manufactured, and then we don't even take in account all the ICE cars in the running for ages.

 

https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/cars/how-many-electric-cars-in-the-us/

 

EVs account for about 2.2% of all vehicles manufactured, meaning that there is only one car for every 250 standard models.

 

Nice attempt at deflection, but no cigar sir.

 

We were talking about lithium ion batteries, the kind that is use in EV's.

 

Those restrictions don't apply to other batteries

 

 

If you read the article, you would see that the statistics are per 100,000 vehicle sales, so the number of vehicles on the road of each type is irrelevant. Statistics coming out of China with 6 million EV’s on the road are pretty much identical.

 

Regarding batteries, try taking a lead acid battery on a flight.  Lithium batteries do get shipped, they don’t “magically” appear in other countries. It’s hardly deflection when you say that you can’t take the fuel source for an EV on a plane and I say you can’t take the fuel source for a petrol car on a plane either.

 

I guess you do know which types of lithium batteries are safest and more suitable for hot climates? You can’t bundle all Lithium batteries in the same category.

Edited September 17, 2023 by JBChiangRai

[ExpatOilWorker]

2 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

Insurance premiums are not much higher, I just renewed the insurance on my daughter’s 1 year old MG EP+ for 8,800 baht.

The devil ???? might be in the details. Does it include 3rd party coverage and if so what is the coverage ceiling?

[ExpatOilWorker]

2 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

https://electrek.co/2022/01/12/government-data-shows-gasoline-vehicles-are-significantly-more-prone-to-fires-than-evs/
 

On the EV threads here on AN this is covered in great detail. It’s an indisputable fact, EV’s catch fire between 10 and 130 times less often than ICE vehicles

Seriously? I thought we were done spewing that per sales garbage ???? statistics.

Per billion miles, Tesla EV are 10 times less likely to burn than ICE vehicles.

As for Chinese EVs, we don't know yet, since only false or at best unreliable numbers are coming out of China.

By the end of 2024 we should have enough EVs on the road in Thailand to draw some sort of conclusion. 

[transam]

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

If you read the article, you would see that the statistics are per 100,000 vehicle sales, so the number of vehicles on the road of each type is irrelevant. Statistics coming out of China with 6 million EV’s on the road are pretty much identical.

 

Regarding batteries, try taking a lead acid battery on a flight.  Lithium batteries do get shipped, they don’t “magically” appear in other countries. It’s hardly deflection when you say that you can’t take the fuel source for an EV on a plane and I say you can’t take the fuel source for a petrol car on a plane either.

 

I guess you do know which types of lithium batteries are safest and more suitable for hot climates? You can’t bundle all Lithium batteries in the same category.

Here is something for you to take note of, I wonder if there will be any EV-er replies...........

 

[transam]

7 minutes ago, transam said:

Here is something for you to take note of, I wonder if there will be any EV-er replies...........

 

An EV-er is confused with this, mind you, I am not surprised.........????

[JBChiangRai]

18 minutes ago, transam said:

An EV-er is confused with this, mind you, I am not surprised.........????

I do enjoy your posts, it’s good to have a really good laugh every day.

 

I am not confused because I know it happens 10-130 times less often with EV’s.

[transam]

Just now, JBChiangRai said:

I do enjoy your posts, it’s good to have a really good laugh every day.

 

I am not confused because I know it happens 10-130 times less often with EV’s.

Then own up, who is confused about water and EV's...........????

[JBChiangRai]

Just now, transam said:

Then own up, who is confused about water and EV's...........????

Probably you, just an educated guess.

[retarius]

14 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

According to the US Government (2 different departments) and Insurance companies, EV fires are about 10 times less likely than internal combustion engine cars.

Citation needed. You are comparing two different situations. ICE cars that are not running do not nurse into flames. EVs do and can cause massive damage when they are parked underneath buildings. They also are known to catch fire with people inside them who can't open the doors.

[JBChiangRai]

7 minutes ago, retarius said:

Citation needed. You are comparing two different situations. ICE cars that are not running do not nurse into flames. EVs do and can cause massive damage when they are parked underneath buildings. They also are known to catch fire with people inside them who can't open the doors.

I already posted the citation, it’s a few posts further up in this list.

 

Actually ICE cars do catch fire when parked

https://www.leamastech.com/blog/causes-parked-car-fire

 

[retarius]

1 minute ago, JBChiangRai said:

I already posted the citation, it’s a few posts further up in this list.

 

Actually ICE cars do catch fire when parked

https://www.leamastech.com/blog/causes-parked-car-fire

 

You are still comparing apples and oranges. Tell me the % of ICE cars less than 3 years old that burst into flames and compared that to the % of EV cars under 3 years old that burst into flames. 

[ExpatOilWorker]

40 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

I am not confused because I know it happens 10-130 times less often with EV’s.

10-130, with 100% uncertainty?

You need to do better than that.

[JBChiangRai]

23 minutes ago, retarius said:

You are still comparing apples and oranges. Tell me the % of ICE cars less than 3 years old that burst into flames and compared that to the % of EV cars under 3 years old that burst into flames. 

Just because you don’t like the government published statistics doesn’t mean you ask for something that is impossible to obtain, you have already lost this argument. Just accept the data.

[JBChiangRai]

15 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

10-130, with 100% uncertainty?

You need to do better than that.

The statistics I have already posted links to say that EV’s catch fire, 10 times less often than ICE cars and almost 130 times less likely than PHEV’s.

[ExpatOilWorker]

1 hour ago, transam said:

Here is something for you to take note of, I wonder if there will be any EV-er replies...........

 

I will also not be surprised, if Tesla don't including these flood related fires in their statistics. 

 

[Fruit Trader]

1 hour ago, transam said:

Then own up, who is confused about water and EV's

Transam, you're just not getting it!

 

Intelligent people buy EV's, us Luddite's are just too dumb to understand the benefits and have no right to an opinion. Strange because this comes from a small group where even the undeniable negatives trigger a state of confusion.

There have been several comments about the intelligence of those who post anything negative about EV's. This Luddite would call that scraping the barrel.

 

Enter anonymous confusion bottom right.......

 

 

 

[transam]

10 minutes ago, Fruit Trader said:

Transam, you're just not getting it!

 

Intelligent people buy EV's, us Luddite's are just too dumb to understand the benefits and have no right to an opinion. Strange because this comes from a small group where even the undeniable negatives trigger a state of confusion.

There have been several comments about the intelligence of those who post anything negative about EV's. This Luddite would call that scraping the barrel.

 

 

 

 

 

The EV-ers have no credible responses to facts, they just kick them under the carpet and hope for the best.  

I must admit I am the same with some issues, but not this one....????

[JBChiangRai]

33 minutes ago, Fruit Trader said:

Transam, you're just not getting it!

 

Intelligent people buy EV's, us Luddite's are just too dumb to understand the benefits and have no right to an opinion. Strange because this comes from a small group where even the undeniable negatives trigger a state of confusion.

There have been several comments about the intelligence of those who post anything negative about EV's. This Luddite would call that scraping the barrel.

 

Enter anonymous confusion bottom right.......

 

 

 

Now just remind me, what is it that is the lowest form of whit?

[JBChiangRai]

32 minutes ago, transam said:

The EV-ers have no credible responses to facts, they just kick them under the carpet and hope for the best.  

I must admit I am the same with some issues, but not this one....????

Except it’s the EV’ers who post the links to facts and figures. The anti-EV’ers not so much.

[Woof999]

4 hours ago, BenStark said:

EVs account for about 2.2% of all vehicles manufactured, meaning that there is only one car for every 250 standard models.

Unless the definition of percentage has changed, "2.2% of all vehicles manufactured" means that 2.2 out of 100 vehicles manufactured, not 1 in 250.

 

Did you mean that, of vehicles on the road, only 1 in 250 is an EV (due to the rising EV production % being recent)?

[ExpatOilWorker]

2 hours ago, retarius said:

They also are known to catch fire with people inside them who can't open the doors.

They call that roasted greens ???? ????. 

 

[transam]

10 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Except it’s the EV’ers who post the links to facts and figures. The anti-EV’ers not so much.

Very funny, get back under the bed, chap..............????

[JBChiangRai]

4 minutes ago, transam said:

Very funny, get back under the bed, chap..............????

OK Transman, post some credible figures stating that EV’s catch fire more than ICE Vehicles.

[BenStark]

16 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

Unless the definition of percentage has changed, "2.2% of all vehicles manufactured" means that 2.2 out of 100 vehicles manufactured, not 1 in 250.

Maybe take it up with the writer of that article, which wasn't me

 

⁴Kopestinsky, A. (2022, September 29). Electric Car Statistics In The US And Abroad. Policy Advice. Retrieved November 24, 2022, from <https://policyadvice.net/insurance/insights/electric-car-statistics/>

 

https://policyadvice.net/insurance/insights/electric-car-statistics/

1. What percentage of cars are electric?

 

On a global scale, only 1 in 250 cars on the road is electric. Meaning, electric vehicles account for only 2.2% of the global vehicle market share. Meanwhile, in the US, plug-in electric cars account for less than 2% of the vehicle market. Based on these statistics, the transition to electric cars is clear but the speed of adoption remains debatable.

Source: Quartz

Edited September 17, 2023 by BenStark

[transam]

1 minute ago, JBChiangRai said:

OK Transman, post some credible figures stating that EV’s catch fire more than ICE Vehicles.

It's transam, mon ami, you should know that by now.....????

 

If you can't remember that, what chance do you have on this subject....

 

Gawd, I have never said EV's catch fire more than ICE rides.  ????

 

Show me where I have............????.....................

[ExpatOilWorker]

2 hours ago, retarius said:

You are still comparing apples and oranges. Tell me the % of ICE cars less than 3 years old that burst into flames and compared that to the % of EV cars under 3 years old that burst into flames. 

Very valid point.  Older EVs may be ticking time bombs ????. 

 

In fact, the analysis shows older cars are far and away the most likely to catch fire and the risk of fire increases the older a car gets. A total of 77 percent of all car fires that occurred in 2017 involved vehicles made in 2007 or earlier, so those at least 10 years old or older. The original Tesla Roadster didn't come out until 2008, and only 2,500 of those were built. The first mass-market EV, the Nissan Leaf, wasn't released until 2010. Only the earliest modern EVs, of which very few were sold, are 10 years old today. The NFPA report cites worn-out parts and deferred maintenance as the likely cause of increased fire danger for older cars.  

 

https://www.motortrend.com/features/you-are-wrong-about-ev-fires?slide=7

[JBChiangRai]

48 minutes ago, transam said:

It's transam, mon ami, you should know that by now.....????

 

If you can't remember that, what chance do you have on this subject....

 

Gawd, I have never said EV's catch fire more than ICE rides.  ????

 

Show me where I have............????.....................

Transman sounds more fun.

 

10 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Very valid point.  Older EVs may be ticking time bombs ????. 

 

In fact, the analysis shows older cars are far and away the most likely to catch fire and the risk of fire increases the older a car gets. A total of 77 percent of all car fires that occurred in 2017 involved vehicles made in 2007 or earlier, so those at least 10 years old or older. The original Tesla Roadster didn't come out until 2008, and only 2,500 of those were built. The first mass-market EV, the Nissan Leaf, wasn't released until 2010. Only the earliest modern EVs, of which very few were sold, are 10 years old today. The NFPA report cites worn-out parts and deferred maintenance as the likely cause of increased fire danger for older cars.  

 

https://www.motortrend.com/features/you-are-wrong-about-ev-fires?slide=7

It does show older cars are more likely to catch fire, but the stats are out there and take that into account. EV’s are 10 times less likely to catch fire.

[BenStark]

4 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

It does show older cars are more likely to catch fire, but the stats are out there and take that into account. EV’s are 10 times less likely to catch fire.

How many older EV's you are aware of?

 

How old are EV's, and no, I'm not talking about the first EV project, but since they started mass production

[JBChiangRai]

9 minutes ago, BenStark said:

How many older EV's you are aware of?

 

How old are EV's, and no, I'm not talking about the first EV project, but since they started mass production

Lots of Tesla’s in the former colonies.

 

There is no point speculating on what maybe in the future. What maybe, maybe not.

[vinny41]

2 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

The statistics I have already posted links to say that EV’s catch fire, 10 times less often than ICE cars and almost 130 times less likely than PHEV’s.

I can remember recently where Five automakers have issued recalls linked to defective lithium-ion cells. for approx. 300,000 vehicles due to risk of fire