• Mikie
    6.8k
    EV “mandates.” Lol.

    The climate denial idiocy continues on…
  • Agree-to-Disagree
    583
    I’ve given your recommendation exactly the amount of attention it deserves: none. As with most climate deniers.

    I get that you’re too stupid to understand why — but others do.
    Mikie

    Here is a news report from Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW):

    Fire and Rescue NSW recording Lithium-Ion battery fires at a rate of five a week - NSW
    Published: 15 Mar 2024 11:48am

    Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) has expressed concerns about the rising rate of Lithium-Ion battery fires as crews responded to four separate incidents yesterday.

    - Nine fire trucks rushed to an address in Apprentice Drive at Berkeley, on the state’s Central Coast, just after 5pm yesterday when an electric vehicle charging station caught alight. Crews established a defensive perimeter around the business, fearing multiple Lithium-Ion truck batteries were at risk of catching fire. Firefighters extinguished the blaze without further incident.

    - Around 4pm yesterday, a tradesman drove to the Tingira Heights Fire Station at Lake Macquarie, alerting firefighters that his toolbox was on fire. The maintenance worker told the crew he was driving when he noticed a large amount of smoke in his rear vision mirror. When he stopped his ute and opened the large toolbox, he found an unattached battery for his hedger ablaze. The man covered the flames in dirt and drove to the nearby fire station. Firefighters opened the toolbox and observed the dirt bubbling as the battery had entered a process, known as ‘Thermal Runaway; whereby the cell was off-gassing and threatening to explode. They submerged the battery in a container of water until the danger had passed.

    - In a third incident around 12.45pm yesterday, a fire broke out in the rear of a garbage truck travelling along Derby Street at Silverwater, in Sydney’s west. The driver stopped the truck and tipped the burning rubbish onto the roadway. FRNSW crews arrived and found one battery amongst around 150 Lithium-Ion cells had entered ‘Thermal Runaway’ and was on fire. The battery was submerged in water, preventing a chain reaction, and the scene cleaned up.

    - In a fourth Lithium-Ion battery-related blaze, an e-bike caught fire on the third floor of a 10-storey apartment block at Bankstown, in Sydney’s south-west. Residents were evacuated from the French Avenue address around 6.30am, as 25 firefighters and four trucks responded to the scene. Sprinklers were activated and suppressed the flames. The fire crews extinguished the fire and ventilated the building. An occupant suffered a superficial burn when he tried to remove the burning e-bike.

    FRNSW has recorded 63 Lithium-Ion battery fires to date in 2024 (this report was published on 15 Mar 2024), subject to review, at a rate of 5.7 blazes a week.

    Seven people have been injured in the fires.

    There were 272 Lithium-Ion battery-related fires in 2023, at a rate of 5.2 a week.

    Thirty eight people were injured last year.

    FRNSW is reinforcing its public messages to households and businesses to use extra caution around Lithium-Ion batteries and related devices.

    Mikie, do you think that Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) is stupid?

    Remember, these problems are only going to get worse as the number of EVs on the road increases.
  • Agree-to-Disagree
    583
    EV “mandates.” Lol.

    The climate denial idiocy continues on…
    Mikie

    Mikie, I am not surprised that you are ignorant about EV mandates. A little bit of googling would have educated you.

    There are EV mandates (or effective mandates) in Europe, UK, China, and Australia. America had an EV mandate until Trump eliminated the electric vehicle (EV) mandate just hours after taking office.

    In Britain automakers' EV sales must account for 22% of overall sales this year, rising to 25% in 2025, 33% in 2026, 38% in 2027, 52% in 2028, 66% in 2029, 80% in 2030 and 100% in 2035. In the EU a roughly similar program to outlaw ICE vehicles is defined by fleet carbon dioxide emissions.

    In Britain failure to meet these requirements forces manufacturers to either purchase certificates from others who exceeded their targets or face fines of £15,000 per non-compliant vehicle.

    Here is the title of an article that I found, "Europe’s Wobbling EV Mandate Will Force Hard Choices".

    China’s EV mandate, announced last week (this was published on October 3, 2017), is part of an effort to reach 20% EV sales, or 7 million vehicles, in 2025, Yunshi Wang of the China Center for Energy and Transportation, UC Davis, told the event.

    While the Australian emission standard does not mandate EVS the government knows full well that the only way that most brands will meet the target is by selling battery cars to offset the regular petrol and diesel cars. It's an EV mandate by the back door.
  • Mikie
    6.8k
    For anyone scrolling: don’t listen to the climate denying imbecile. He’s lying, or he’s watching too much Fox News: there has never been an EV “mandate” in the US. Never.

    And the climate denying idiocy continues on…
  • Agree-to-Disagree
    583
    there has never been an EV “mandate” in the US. Never.Mikie

    Mikie, you seem to live in a world of your own. Why don't you try getting out of your mother's basement occasionally.

    In an earlier post I said:

    There are EV mandates (or effective mandates) in Europe, UK, China, and Australia. America had an EV mandate until Trump eliminated the electric vehicle (EV) mandate just hours after taking office.Agree-to-Disagree

    Try googling "ev mandate america us usa". Here are some results:

    This first one is from The White House (the whitehouse.gov domain). I think that they will know about EV mandates if anybody does.
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/unleashing-american-energy

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
    Section 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States:
    (e) to eliminate the “electric vehicle (EV) mandate” and promote true consumer choice, which is essential for economic growth and innovation, by removing regulatory barriers to motor vehicle access; by ensuring a level regulatory playing field for consumer choice in vehicles; by terminating, where appropriate, state emissions waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles; and by considering the elimination of unfair subsidies and other ill-conceived government-imposed market distortions that favor EVs over other technologies and effectively mandate their purchase by individuals, private businesses, and government entities alike by rendering other types of vehicles unaffordable;

    RANDY FEENSTRA - Proudly serving the 4th district (the house.gov domain)
    https://feenstra.house.gov/media/op-ed/president-bidens-electric-vehicle-mandates-are-costly-and-unrealistic
    President Biden’s Electric-Vehicle Mandates are Costly and Unrealistic.
    On March 20th, President Biden authorized the largest government mandate of electric vehicles in American history.
    But President Biden didn’t stop his attacks on liquid fuels there. Just nine days after he approved his electric-vehicle mandate on American families, he authorized another EPA rule that would impact eight different classes of trucks and require a growing share of trucks – including semis – to be electric over the next decade.
    As is commonplace with this administration, President Biden has his priorities misplaced. By forcing mandates on our families while inflation continues to rise, he is increasing costs for Americans at a time when they can least afford it.

    Energy & Commerce - Chairman Brett Guthrie (the house.gov domain)
    https://energycommerce.house.gov/posts/e-and-c-republicans-lead-to-stop-the-biden-harris-de-facto-ev-mandate
    Energy and Commerce Republicans are leading to stop the Biden-Harris administration from imposing unaffordable electric vehicle mandates that will jeopardize our auto industry and hand China the keys to our energy future.

    USA Today
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2025/01/20/trump-executive-order-day-1-electric-vehicle/77835683007
    Trump ends 'electric vehicle mandate,' withdraws US from Paris climate agreement
    The orders include eliminating the so-called "electric vehicle mandate," Trump's phrase for a Environmental Protection Agency rule that required auto manufacturers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half in new light- and medium-duty vehicles beginning in 2027.
    The EPA has estimated the rule would force auto manufacturers to build electric vehicles for about 30% to 56% of their new light-duty vehicles by 2032 and 20% to 32% of new medium duty vehicles.
  • unenlightened
    9.4k
    Is this information incorrect because it is in MGUY's video?Agree-to-Disagree

    - Electric cars can 'explode' and the public must be warned say worried UK fire chiefs.Agree-to-Disagree

    What about petrol cars? Can they not explode? Batteries are a new hazard that people need to become aware of. But the information that would be more informative than 'what fire chiefs say' is the comparison.

    Australia’s Department of Defence funded EV FireSafe to look into the question. It found there was a 0.0012% chance of a passenger electric vehicle battery catching fire, compared with a 0.1% chance for internal combustion engine cars. (The Home Office said it was unable to provide data for the UK.)

    Elon Musk’s Tesla is the world’s biggest maker of electric cars. It says the number of fires on US roads involving Teslas from 2012 to 2021 was 11 times lower per mile than the figure for all cars, the vast majority of which have petrol or diesel engines.
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/20/do-electric-cars-pose-a-greater-fire-risk-than-petrol-or-diesel-vehicles.

    Fire departments are right to be concerned, and there are new factors to take into account, fumes and restarts, along with unknowns such as the rate of increase as batteries age. Nevertheless, MGUY is more than a little misleading in his representation of the risks of EVs that ignores completely the familiar, and by an order of magnitude greater risks of fossil fuel vehicles.

    Horses hardly ever explode; perhaps cars should be banned altogether.
  • Mikie
    6.8k
    There has never been an EV mandate. True, that’s hard to believe for climate denying idiots who cite Donald Trump as a source.

    The orders include eliminating the so-called "electric vehicle mandate," Trump's phrase for a Environmental Protection Agency rule that required auto manufacturers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by halfAgree-to-Disagree

    Emphasis mine.

    So yeah, the phrase “EV mandate” sure is used a lot, particularly in conservative media. Imagine thinking that this proves something…

    The phrase “voter fraud” pops up a lot too. Must mean it’s true (it isn’t).

    So both a climate denier and brainwashed by conservative media…but I repeat myself.
  • Mikie
    6.8k


    Wind turbines kill birds! Same logic.

    Oh wait— cats kill 1000 times more birds. Hmm. It’s almost as if these criticisms of renewables are disingenuous.

    Really hilarious to watch.
  • unenlightened
    9.4k
    cats kill 1000 times more birds.Mikie

    Yeah but horses hardly kill any birds - they're a win win solution.
  • Agree-to-Disagree
    583
    There has never been an EV mandate. True, that’s hard to believe for climate denying idiots who cite Donald Trump as a source.Mikie

    Mikie, if you had the ability to "think before acting" and to "consider the complexity of a situation before making a choice" (both of which fruit flies can do :scream: ), then you would make less mistakes.

    A mandate is "an official order or commission to do something".

    The Environmental Protection Agency rule that required auto manufacturers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half in new light- and medium-duty vehicles beginning in 2027 IS THE MANDATE.

    The EPA has estimated the rule would force auto manufacturers to build electric vehicles for about 30% to 56% of their new light-duty vehicles by 2032 and 20% to 32% of new medium duty vehicles.

    This is similar to the Britain mandate which says that automakers' EV sales must account for 22% of overall sales this year, rising to 25% in 2025, 33% in 2026, 38% in 2027, 52% in 2028, 66% in 2029, 80% in 2030 and 100% in 2035.

    The British mandate is based on sales figures whereas the USA mandate is based on greenhouse gas emissions.

    So you are wrong (as usual). There was an EV mandate in the USA but Trump eliminated it just hours after taking office.
  • Mikie
    6.8k
    The Environmental Protection Agency rule that required auto manufacturers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half in new light- and medium-duty vehicles beginning in 2027 IS THE MANDATE.Agree-to-Disagree

    No, it isn’t. And never was.

    You can still buy combustion engine cars all you want. No one is forcing anyone to buy an EV. The entire “mandate” bullshit is and was a manufactured Fox News myth, on par with the hysteria around “taking away your hamburgers” and the “mandate” to buy induction stoves.

    And the truly imbecilic fall for it. But Trump and his media said it repeatedly, so it must be true. If only there were a mandate against climate denying idiots…
  • Mikie
    6.8k
    Speaking of stupid myths like the non-existent EV “mandate,” what became of all that gas-stove hysteria?

    Honestly, I wish there actually WERE mandates on this stuff. Public transportation, sustainable farming, etc. But all we get are emissions reduction targets years in the making, which are already way too long (50% by 2050!).

    Meanwhile the world burns.
  • Agree-to-Disagree
    583
    You can still buy combustion engine cars all you want. No one is forcing anyone to buy an EV. The entire “mandate” bullshit...]Mikie

    The effective EV mandate would make gasoline-powered automobiles much more expensive than EV's (the opposite of the current situation). This would effectively price gasoline-powered automobiles out of the market in favour of EVs.

    Mikie, you seem unable to understand the clear statement made by President Trump. Here it is again. I will carefully explain it to you in language that an idiot can understand. I have underlined the parts that you should pay attention to.

    To eliminate the “electric vehicle (EV) mandate” and promote true consumer choice
    - by removing regulatory barriers to motor vehicle access
    - by ensuring a level regulatory playing field for consumer choice in vehicles
    - by terminating, where appropriate, state emissions waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles
    - by considering the elimination of unfair subsidies and other ill-conceived government-imposed market distortions that favor EVs over other technologies
    - the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule (this is the the effective EV mandate) that required auto manufacturers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half in new light- and medium-duty vehicles beginning in 2027 and effectively mandate the purchase of EVs by individuals, private businesses, and government entities alike by rendering other types of vehicles unaffordable;

    Can you understand that?
  • Mikie
    6.8k
    The effective EV mandateAgree-to-Disagree

    It’s not a mandate, nor an effective mandate. Citing Trump makes you even more pathetic than you’ve established yourself to be.

    Keep embarrassing yourself though. It’s cringey but kind of hilarious.

    I will carefully explain it to youAgree-to-Disagree

    Love when idiots pretend to be the one’s “explaining” things— :rofl: Who exactly are you fooling, other than yourself?
  • Mikie
    6.8k


    Exactly. Let’s all wait for those who have established themselves as authorities — and who definitely has not had their stupidity proven over and over again — to EXPLAIN to us children why these disasters are a good thing. Or just natural, etc.

    Can’t wait.
  • Agree-to-Disagree
    583
    It’s not a mandate, nor an effective mandateMikie

    Have you ever seen the advertisement for Claytons, a non-alcoholic, non-carbonated beverage coloured and packaged to resemble bottled whisky. Since is has zero alcohol the punch-line in the advertisement is "the drink that you have when you're not having a drink".

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule that required auto manufacturers to cut greenhouse gas emissions is "the mandate that you have when you're not having a mandate".

    Hey Mikie, how do you keep an idiot in suspense?
  • Mikie
    6.8k
    So, to summarize in the off-chance anyone pays attention to this idiot:

    There is no EV mandate. There was no EV mandate. Effectively or otherwise. Take it no more seriously than “they’re taking away your hamburgers!” Or hysteria over induction stoves. To climate denying Trump cultists, who ignore all reality that doesn’t conform to what he or his media says, it’s all very real. That’s true. But it doesn’t exist. It’s just another small aspect of climate denial.

    I don't know if Trump was lying or just honestly has his facts wrong, but either way, there is no EV mandate. The Biden administration DID tighten fuel-economy standards (though not as much as initially proposed) and the EPA did tighten tailpipe-emissions rules but there is no rule or law forcing automakers to build EVs or a certain percentage of EVs. Biden has set a goal of 50 percent EV sales by 2030, but that's a goal not a mandate.

    Some might argue that the tighter rules will, in effect, force automakers to build more EVs in order to comply, but that would ignore that automakers can get there using other tech including hybrids. Automakers could also, if I understand the rules correctly, be in compliance simply by building more vehicles that have fuel-efficient internal-combustion powertrains -- you know, the kind of vehicles that have become scare as consumers flock to more-profitable crossovers and SUVs.

    Even if the new rules do force automakers to alter their product mix and offerings to be in compliance, it is not a mandate that they build EVs.

    I'd also add, taking off the fact-checker hat and putting on the analyst hat, that many American-built EVs are built in states that show heavy support for Donald Trump. Not only is Trump likely upsetting automakers, who need regulatory consistency since they plan models years in advance, but he could be upsetting his own constituents.

    The Biden Administration dropped a new rule limiting tailpipe emissions from passenger vehicles yesterday, and you know what that means.

    Yes, it's lying season!

    I want to focus on one particular egregious lie. You will soon see arguments from certain anti-EV types that new rule is an EV mandate. It very much is not.

    First, some background from the New York Times:
    The rule increasingly limits the amount of pollution allowed from tailpipes over time so that, by 2032, more than half the new cars sold in the United States would most likely be zero-emissions vehicles in order for carmakers to meet the standards.

    We can argue all day long about whether the rule is too stringent or not, or whether automakers will be able to achieve the administration's goals. But as the Times points out, the government is NOT forcing the fleet to become all electric:

    The E.P.A. regulation is not a ban. It does not mandate the sales of electric vehicles, and gas-powered cars and trucks could still be sold. Rather, it requires carmakers to meet tough new average emissions limits across their entire product line. It’s up to the manufacturers to decide how to comply.

    That hasn't stopped the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers lobbying arm from calling the rule "Biden's EPA car ban." This is where I credit the oft-beleaguered Times, which I have hit at here and there, for not pulling punches and calling that assertion false.

    It's not a ban on cars or internal-combustion engine cars. It's just not. And don't let those who have an anti-EV agenda lie to you.

    https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/cars/editorials/opinion-politicians-are-lying-about-biden-s-epa-rule-44505856
  • Agree-to-Disagree
    583
    There is no EV mandate. There was no EV mandate. Effectively or otherwise.Mikie

    A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

    Do you understand that Mikie?

    In case you don't understand it, I will explain it to you.

    It doesn't matter what name you use to describe what the Biden administration and the EPA did. The important thing is that President Trump got rid of it.
  • Mikie
    6.8k
    Now degenerated into full-blown Trump cultist. What a shocker. :lol:

    The important thing is that Trump stopped all the massive voter fraud! (Never mind that the “voter fraud” didn’t exist, and was all along a figment of his imagination.) Ditto the “EV mandate.”

    And don't let those who have an anti-EV agenda lie to you.

    :up: Exactly.
  • Agree-to-Disagree
    583
    Now degenerated into full-blown Trump cultist. What a shocker. :lol:Mikie

    Mikie, I am not, and never have been, a big fan of Donald Trump.

    I also do not watch Fox News. And I never have.

    You are wrong once again. :scream:
  • Mikie
    6.8k
    Thankfully it’s now clear: climate denier and Trump cultist.

    No wonder everyone thinks you’re an idiot.
  • Agree-to-Disagree
    583
    Thankfully it’s now clear: climate denier and Trump cultist.Mikie

    :rofl:
  • Mikie
    6.8k
    No wonder everyone thinks you’re an idiot.Mikie

    :lol: Case in point. :point: "This".

    That’s how you know it’s true.
  • Agree-to-Disagree
    583
    What about petrol cars? Can they not explode?unenlightened

    There is a big difference between "exploding" and "catching fire".

    This is a long post. If you don't want to see the details of how the calculations were done then you can skip the details and go straight to the "Summary of results"

    There are at least 5 calculations for the relative risk of gasoline cars catching fire compared to EVs.

    1) The EV FireSafe report which was funded by Australia’s Department of Defense. It found that the risk of a gasoline car catching fire was about 83 times bigger than the risk of an EV catching fire. (83 is calculated by dividing 0.1 by 0.0012)

    2) A graphic that has been widely shared on the internet which is attributed to the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board). This graphic hasn't changed since 2018 so we should be careful when using these numbers). It shows that the risk of an EV catching fire is 25.1 per 100k Sales. It also shows that the risk of a gasoline car catching fire is 1,529.9 per 100k Sales. Using these numbers makes the risk of a gasoline car catching fire about 61 times bigger than the risk of an EV catching fire. (61 is calculated by dividing 1,529.9 by 25.1)

    3) The Authority for Social Protection and Preparedness in Sweden recently released the first report of its kind specifically tracking EV fires in Sweden and comparing them to combustion-powered vehicle fires, and the results are clear: EVs are much less likely to catch fire.

    According to MSB data, there are nearly 611,000 EVs and hybrids in Sweden as of 2022. With an average of 16 EV and hybrid fires per year, there's a 1 in 38,000 chance of fire. There are a total of roughly 4.4 million gas- and diesel-powered passenger vehicles in Sweden, with an average of 3,384 fires per year, for a 1 in 1,300 chance of fire. That means gas- and diesel-powered passenger vehicles are 29 times more likely to catch fire than EVs and hybrids.

    4) From https://www.nautinst.org/resources-page/recognising-the-risk-of-evs.html
    Statistically, the estimated failure rate (and therefore risk of combustion) of an individual battery cell is one in ten million. However, when you consider that an average EV contains approximately 7000 cells, the risk increases significantly.

    Data from the London Fire Brigade suggests an incident rate of 0.04% for ICE car fires, but the rate for EVs is more than double that at 0.1%. Although it is not clear whether EVs are more likely than ICE vehicles to catch fire, it is common ground that the consequences are potentially more disastrous and more difficult to handle.

    Using these numbers makes the risk of a gasoline car catching fire about 0.4 (about a half) times the risk of an EV catching fire. (0.5 is calculated by dividing 0.04 by 0.1)

    5) Various statements from Elon Musk

    - https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/20/do-electric-cars-pose-a-greater-fire-risk-than-petrol-or-diesel-vehicles
    Elon Musk’s Tesla is the world’s biggest maker of electric cars. It says the number of fires on US roads involving Teslas from 2012 to 2021 was 11 times lower per mile than the figure for all cars, the vast majority of which have petrol or diesel engines. So the risk of a gasoline car catching fire is about
    11 times the risk of a Tesla (EV) catching fire

    - https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1133254_fires-are-less-frequent-in-teslas-and-other-evs-vs-gas-vehicles
    The electric car maker notes, as CEO Elon Musk has for years, that the frequency of EV fire headlines can be deceiving. There were almost 190,000 vehicle fires in the U.S. in 2019, and they happen in gasoline vehicles at a much higher rate. It notes that from 2012 to 2020 there was about one Tesla vehicle fire per 205 million miles traveled—versus one per 19 million miles traveled for all types, citing data from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation.

    Using these numbers makes the risk of a gasoline car catching fire about 11 times the risk of a Tesla (EV) catching fire. (11 is calculated by dividing 205 by 19)

    - https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
    Vehicle Fire Data
    Our global data indicates that, between 2012 and 2022, approximately one Tesla vehicle fire event occurred for every 130 million vehicle miles traveled. By comparison, data from the NFPA and U.S. Department of Transportation indicate that one vehicle fire occurs in the United States for every 18 million miles traveled.

    Using these numbers makes the risk of a gasoline car catching fire about 7 times the risk of a Tesla (EV) catching fire. (7 is calculated by dividing 130 by 18)

    - https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/10/04/elon-musk-tesla-fire/2924423
    Elon Musk defends Tesla electric car after fire (This is from 2013)
    Elon Musk says in comparison to 150,000 vehicles fires a year, Tesla has now had only one out of 100 million miles driven. "This means you are 5 times more likely to experience a fire in a conventional gasoline car than a Tesla!"

    Summary of results

    The different calculations for the relative risk of gasoline cars catching fire compared to EVs are:
    - 83 times more likely
    - 61 times more likely
    - 29 times more likely
    - 0.4 times more likely
    The different claims from Elon Musk for the relative risk of gasoline cars catching fire compared to EVs are:
    - 11 times more likely
    - 11 times more likely
    - 7 times more likely
    - 5 times more likely (a claim made in 2013)

    The large range of values for the relative risk of gasoline cars catching fire compared to EVs is probably due to a number of reasons. The lack of data, and the reliability of the data that does exist, makes all of these values questionable.

    An important factor has been left out of these statistical calculations

    None of these calculations take into account the age distributions of gasoline cars and EVs on the road. The age distributions of gasoline cars and EVs are very different. There are many gasoline cars on the road which are well over 20 years old. 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 over 10 years old today.

    An analysis of car fires shows that 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 over 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.

    How many 20 year old cars are still on the road?
    - about 23% of all passenger cars on the road today are 20 years old or older. (none of these are EVs)

    Percentage of cars still on the road (some numbers rounded)
    Year Range % of Vehicles
    2020-24 model years 12%
    2015-19 model years 26%
    2010-14 model years 19%
    2005-09 model years 20%
    2000-04 model years 14%
    1995-99 model years 5%
    1990-94 model years 2%
    1985-89 model years 1%
    Older than 1985 1%

    The average age of electric vehicles (EVs) in the United States is 3.5 years.
    The average age of all vehicles in the United States is 12.6 years.

    All of the current calculations for the relative risk of gasoline cars catching fire compared to EVs are NOT comparing apples with apples.

    It may be that once the age distribution of gasoline cars and EVs is taken into account that they both have a similar risk of catching fire, There is also the possibility that the risk of an EV catching fire is greater than the risk of a gasoline car catching fire.
  • unenlightened
    9.4k
    It may be that once the age distribution of gasoline cars and EVs is taken into account that they both have a similar risk of catching fire, There is also the possibility that the risk of an EV catching fire is greater than the risk of a gasoline car catching fire.Agree-to-Disagree

    And that is the careful conclusion that MGUY doesn't come to, because he's a petrol-head.

    New technology has sparse statistics and as problems come to light, safety regulations develop. In some cases, the technology may have to be abandoned - the use of DDT, and asbestos comes to mind. It may yet happen with EVs, because large scale energy storage is a new tech, if one discounts the lead/acid batteries that powered EVs in the early part of the 20th century. But there is more than one kind of new rechargeable battery, and more variations will be developed.

    But the persistent long term deleterious effects of fossil fuel use are extremely well understood. You, nor MGUY choose to remotely consider them:— all your research and all your criticism is directed at problems that arise from efforts to find alternatives, and the difficulties of pinning down the exact extent of a global change of inconceivable complexity, of which no one has any experience, even theoretically through geological records.

    And so pages of script and hours of labour are wasted here, discussing your petrol head video maker, not to convince you, because no one here has any wish to argue with a climate change denier, but simply to explain to the general reader, why you and MGUY are not reliable sources of information.
  • Agree-to-Disagree
    583
    And that is the careful conclusion that MGUY doesn't come to, because he's a petrol-head.unenlightened

    You shouldn't disregard everything that MGUY says just because you think that he is a petrol-head. You are attacking him rather than discussing what he says (ad hominem).

    I agree with your comment about new technology. I saw a news item which said that Korean researchers are developing a long-lasting, self-extinguishing EV battery. That could be a game changer.

    I think that MGUY is concerned that the proposed solutions to climate change that are being rushed in will cause serious problems. I have the same concern. In the same way that scientists are meant to be skeptical, we are looking at the proposed solutions to climate change from a different angle. You should listen to what we say and respond to what we say, not have a knee-jerk response because you don't like what we say. You don't want to be like Mikie, do you? We should also listen to what you say and respond in a reasonable way.

    I am well aware of the predicted long term deleterious effects of fossil fuels use. You say that all our research and all our criticism is directed at problems that arise from efforts to find alternatives. Somebody should be doing this, and I don't see many other people doing it.

    I put a lot of time and effort into looking at the question of the relative risk of gasoline cars catching fire compared to EVs. I don't regard it as a waste of time. I showed that the "facts" that Alarmists are using are wrong (see how I can call people names as well). Why should I believe anything that an Alarmist says? Please point out where my analysis of the relative risk of gasoline cars catching fire compared to EVs is wrong.
  • Mikie
    6.8k
    You, nor MGUY choose to remotely consider them:— all your research and all your criticism is directed at problems that arise from efforts to find alternatives, and the difficulties of pinning down the exact extent of a global change of inconceivable complexityunenlightened

    :clap:

    I applaud your efforts for the general reader. This guy makes a decent example of current climate change denial. Because he’s not very intelligent, it makes it easy— so it’s not really fair. But still— good for anyone pursuing.
  • unenlightened
    9.4k
    I think that MGUY is concerned that the proposed solutions to climate change that are being rushed in will cause serious problems. I have the same concern.Agree-to-Disagree

    I don't believe you. It is not credible that either of you are concerned about safety, because you only bring up these concerns as a reason for not dealing with the safety concerns associated with climate change.

    I think MGUY is concerned about possible restrictions on his enjoyment of fast petrol cars. He has videos on all these:

    Mercedes-Benz SLK 350

    Maserati GranTurismo (2013)

    MG Midget (1971)

    Ferrari 360

    Mercedes C63 (2020)

    These "sports" cars are what he is concerned about, and their safety is not their major feature, and nor is utility or economy. These cars are what is known as "penis extensions". EVs have superior acceleration, potentially, but they are too quiet to satisfy poseurs.
  • Agree-to-Disagree
    583
    I don't believe you. It is not credible that either of you are concerned about safety, because you only bring up these concerns as a reason for not dealing with the safety concerns associated with climate change.unenlightened

    It doesn't matter whether you believe MGUY and/or me. What you need to do is address the concerns that we raise. Otherwise you just have your head buried in the sand.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.