An interesting map of Germany showing how the consumer intent tracks the political leaning. The former DDR states, where the AfD support is strong, have a much lower acceptance of EVs.

If so, is it because there’s a fear of EV’s themselves going up in flames, or is it a consideration of the electrical infrastructure of an old building, housing more people and electrical load than it was ever designed for, not being able to safely cope with a handful of cars, each pulling 7kW?

Presumably not fitting chargers and putting 3A fuses in all the 3 pin plugs in the car park should sort the latter excuse.

Perish the thought there might be a teeny sliver of hypocrisy coming from that place.

‘ Parliament bans EV cars in the House of Commons underground car park on Health and Safety grounds ! youtu.be/a2v6ckfcE_ Its interesting that the policy makers have decided not to allow charging in their building !’ You posted this last week, on the previous thread. This time it’s a random bloke on YouTube reading a press release. What we don’t know is the reasoning behind the ban on charging underground - is it a genuine fear of fire? If so, is it because there’s a fear of EV’s themselves going up in flames, or is it a consideration of the electrical infrastructure of an old building, housing more people and electrical load than it was ever designed for, not being able to safely cope with a handful of cars, each pulling 7kW?

See my previous comments from Sunday on Vol14 of this thread as to the likely reasons why. I do have a good amount of experience on this having worked on a number of projects there about 10 years ago, and the likelihood is that the electrical capacity problem (like so many there) has yet to be fixed.

To be fair, a building that old, built before electrical power was even a thing, will always struggle to meet modern demands without essentially gutting the place inside and refurbing from scratch.

As we now know, the politicians won't ever go for that, despite it being far cheaper and shorter in timescale than the 'make do and mend' option they've chosen, because it would obviously require the building to be completely shut down and for best part of 10-15 years.

Unfortunately the powers-that-be have known this (and of the many other big issues) for many decades now and have shied away from doing what is necessary, because on the surface, it looks bad from a PR standpoint, rather than doing the works in little bit over a much longer timeframe, costly vastly more, but keeping the place open.

When the Oxford professor J B Goodenough first invented the lithium ion battery in 1976 it was heralded as a major scientific breakthrough.

But his words to his team at the time was that he sincerely hoped that it would not have major domestic uptake because of the danger of thermal runaways causing major fires.

What we see happening all over the world in houses , flats , car showroom s etc reflect back to Goodenoughs warnings !

If anyone’s interested, a quick run through of the two different battery types you’ll see manufacturers talking about . Both are lithium ion batteries, but the terminology can be a little confusing. The longer established type is NMC (Nickel, Manganese, Cobalt). Pros - Higher levels of energy density - a car will go further per KG of battery. They typically produce 3.7v. Good cold and hot weather performance. Cons - Battery life cycle is shorter. Up to 3000 charge cycles. More expensive, and contentious, due to containing nickel, manganese and cobalt. Judged more susceptible to thermal runaway. More manufacturers are now adopting LFP packs - Lithium Ferrous (Iron) Phosphate. Pros - Life cycle. Potentially up to 10000 charge cycles. More chemically stable so less prone to thermal runaway and fire. No cobalt - so no more accusations of human rights abuses in DRC. Lower cost as a result of using lower cost constituents. More tolerant of repeated rapid charging, so faster charge speeds available at higher levels of SOC. Cons - lower energy density levels. 3.2v across a cell. For two identically size/weight of batteries, an NMC will go further than an LFP. They’re a bit more temperature sensitive - greater range drops at lower temperatures. Manufacturers are divided - BYD use LFP, Renault use NMC, Tesla use both. LFP is a lower priced offering, with greater longevity and perceived safety and environmental benefits, but if you want the ultimate in range then NMC is still the best solution.

Slightly better, but still. Ironically, my local KIA franchise moved around the corner (where the Vauxhall dealer used to be) and they've now set up a BYD franchise in the relatively new building they vacated. Ironically it was rebuilt about 6 years or so ago because the old one burned down due to some 'issue in the workshop'.

Given how many Li-Ion batteries are in an EV and the hugely higher current draw they charge with compared to a mobile phone, laptop or wireless power tools, the chances and especially the consequences of serious problems emanating from charging (whether via the supply itself, charging equipment / cabling or car / battery pack) is several magnitudes higher.

As this topic seems to have taken off, a well-known website has some interesting stats: www.honestjohn.co.uk/the-latest-car-fire-statistic.../

Apparently on average 25 EVs catch fire for every 100,000 sold, making them 20 times less likely to catch fire than petrol or diesel cars.

If I had to guess the cause. I'd go with a fault on the EVSE installation. Or the house wiring. I had an EVSE go faulty a year or so ago. It tripped every breaker in the house, garage etc. I'd consider that a successful test !

Doing my forensics on the old EVSE. Now i dont want to get too technical here but, there'd been a jet of flame out of the side of one gubbins box enough to scorch the inside of the case. Bad right? No. The safety systems kicked in, no harm done.

The specific breakers aren't cheap. From memory a couple of hundred. Maybe someone got a faulty one..

That’s interesting MCB but the only car fire that I witnessed led me to believe a different conclusion.

it took place on the car park at my work. The fire started from a short circuit happening in a newly installed car radio . It quickly consumed the whole car and because my office was 30 minutes away from the fire station it quickly spread to the next car , jumping the gap.

The fire consumed four more adjacent petrol cars before coming to an abrupt halt when it tried to ignite a diesel car .

The memory still remains with me and convinces me that diesel cars are inherently less of a fire risk than other vehicles .

.... cars have the same paint, the same plastic outer panels, the same plastic wheel arch liners. Everything that would catch fire from an adjacent car ablaze is exactly the same.

I suggest that unless the spreading fire becomes an inferno. wheel-arch liners may last longer (or probably just melt) than tyres - which will also be the same whatever the fuel. After all, piles of tyres often make nasty smoky bonfires in the wrong hands.

Despite your rhetoric, my contention is based in fact, having worked in an environment for years where genuine experts used such methodology to work out the risk profiles of certain technology in the working environment, not just some bench test that bears little resemblance to real life situations and actual experience.

Lacking your vast knowledge and experience some of us have to just muddle through as best we can.

It was the experts I worked with whose opinions I trusted, because they were backed up by decades of hard data across the board in the field of risk management in engineering.

Many 'expert reports' these days are nothing more than biased opinions at best and lies at worst paid for by people wanting a certain outcome to fit their agenda and investments, many of which are taxpayer backed because they never can survive (even after decades of R&D) without huge subsidies.

You stick with making sarcastic comments. I'll stick with real-life experiences and data. Might I suggest 'the Other Place'.

Despite your rhetoric, my contention is based in fact, having worked in an environment for years where genuine experts used such methodology to work out the risk profiles of certain technology in the working environment, not just some bench test that bears little resemblance to real life situations and actual experience.

Lacking your vast knowledge and experience some of us have to just muddle through as best we can.

It was the experts I worked with whose opinions I trusted, because they were backed up by decades of hard data across the board in the field of risk management in engineering.

Many 'expert reports' these days are nothing more than biased opinions at best and lies at worst paid for by people wanting a certain outcome to fit their agenda and investments, many of which are taxpayer backed because they never can survive (even after decades of R&D) without huge subsidies.

You stick with making sarcastic comments. I'll stick with real-life experiences and data. Might I suggest 'the Other Place'.

Everybody quantifies risk on the basis of likelihood X impact. You don't have any data on either that I know of. What is factually known is that the likelihood of an EV fire is lower than the likelihood of an ICR fire. That only really leaves the impact up for debate. In my, and many others' opinion, the impact is marginally more than an ICR fire but not fundamentally different.

Wrong. It's both impact and comparing like-with-like. The overwhelming majority of EVs are 5 years old or (a lot) less, given the vast majority of EV sales have come in the last few years.

That means to make *some kind* of accurate comparison, all ICE vehicles older that that must be removed - which I seriously doubt they were from the 'reports' touted as 'evidence'. Similarly all those ICE hypercars that regularly catch fire and are not a representative sample of 'ordinary ICE vehicles.

Then you have to take into account usage variables (where, how and what they are used for, annual mileage, serving [see age]), which again I seriously doubt has been covered and who has bought them, because it's likely EVs (99% new) are bought by better off people with both the means and the inclination to look after them, both when driving and keeping them well maintained.

Only when such EVs reach older age and have gone through several owners can you make a reasonable comparison. But I suspect many will get sc***ped because potential owners can't afford the insurance and potential write-off of the need for an EV battery pack (or significant portion of) replacement (whether by a fault or mechanical damage [or the risk of] after a relatively minor accident), given that is likely several multiples of the car's worth and obtaining warranted second hand ones is also nigh on impossible because all the good'uns end up in battery walls.

A good indicator of what will happen then is shown in the many battery fires in e-scooters and bikes used by couriers, fast food delivery people and youths, who buy cheap tat and don't exactly look after them, rather like some people running older cars - because they often can't afford to or don't have the time.

On that basis, EVs are safer than ICE.

The impact of an ICE car fire is mainly limited to the car itself being ruined and mostly low level damage to the road underneath, with occasionally more costs if the vehicle is in an underground car park or right next to a property with significant wooden structure.

Occupants, bystanders and firefighters are rarely injured or killed unless the fire was caused by a serious accident, trapping people inside and/or involving secondary fires caused by materials carried in the vehicles, including more commercial vehicles.

An EV fire, on the other hand, will likely result in a far, far hotter fire that spreads a lot quicker and produces significantly more harmful / deadly fumes. There are many documented cases of firefighters lives being ruined by such fumes because the extra heat of the EV fire compromises their gear and the two gets inside, including into their BA lines.

The fires themselves are quite similar to those produced by military-grade incendiary explosives and are almost impossible to put out because the Li-Ion batteries provide a self-generating source of Oxygen as they decay during the fire, and cannot readily be smothered or the temperature reduced because the cells are mostly out of reach of the fire-fighters as they are in sealed compartments that are part of the structure of the underside of the vehicle.

Most are left to burn themselves out, often over several days. On many occasions, this has caused serious damage to the roadway, nearby vehicles (because it is too dangerous to move them) and properties because of the far higher temperatures involved, far more dangerous fumes and the far longer time they are susceptible to damage (see above).

One EV in an underground car park could easily start off a chain reaction in all the others in short order (see the Luton fire) which destroys all the vehicles and the building - and may risk many lives of people inside. The difference in magnitude of a potential EV via vs an ICE one and the consequences to life and property is enormous.

This is likely why the HoP refused to house chargers because of the consequences should a fire develop because of a fault. I suspect if they REALLY had their way, all EVs would be banned from their underground car park, but the politicians likely overuled them for political purposes because of Net Zero and how bad that would look.

I should also note the many instances worldwide of disastrous fires at EV battery manufacturing plants and storage depots. As the number of EVs ramps up and they get nearer 10 years old and more, the number of fires will start to rise significantly, as will the casualty rates and the physical and economic costs of them.

Your opinion that ICR is safer is driven partly from disbelieving the consensus around likelihood and partly from assigning a higher impact than other people do. I think it would be relatively easy to establish the facts on likelihood (by, for example, only looking at cars less than five years old and ignoring those over £50k). It is somewhat harder to establish the impact.

I personally would think more than twice if I were considering living or working in / using a building with a communal car park (especially a multi-storey and particularly an enclosed underground one) that could house EVs.

The recent big bump in car insurance (I bet some of them raised all car insurance to offset the extra risk for EVs, given the changeover to EVs is mandated and cannot be avoided) could then migrate to certain properties - flats, office buildings, hospitals, retail outlets and leisure centres, airports, warehouses, and, of course, car parks, which could make them unviable from an economic standpoint if the extra insurance premiums were passed onto customers/users.

Even if you didn't own an EV, you could still pay a huge penalty if someone in your flat block owned an EV and parked it in the car park, because I would've thought that the insurers would want to know, rather like 'increased risk area the car is left/used in. This would migrate to other car insurance policies, building and contents.

It could reduce the value of the properties, ironically if charging points were fitted or especially if users 'took matters into their own hands' (as some EV owners have on the development where I live) and either fit their own chargers (from their house) in communal parking areas or run charging cables from their house without permission, often leaving loose cables unattended, especially overnight.

Imagine a house owner who did this experienced a fault, or 'yoofs' vandalised the cable/charger, but the resident didn't realise until it was too late. Half a dozen cars could easily be destroyed, as could large portions of neighbouring properties which have wooden fences between them and are less than 10m from the car parking area in all directions.

One resident who lives at the front of the development has both their allocated spaces right next to the estate boundary fence, and right next door to that is...Kwik Fit, with loads of nice tyres and cars inside. The development only has one way in/out, right past this chap's home. If this all went up and anyone else needed the emergency services, what would they do? Note that this could be be burning noxious chemicals (including towards where I live, 100m away) and we'd have no way of getting out.

Like with the car finance firms now experiencing serious problems refinancing PCP and lease deals from first generation EV sales, the risk issues with EVs is in my view a ticking time-bomb waiting to go off. It may well be that newer, safer batteries are developed, but what about the millions of cars already sold, including HEVs, PHEVs and MEVs with EV-type batteries?

I also wonder if those vehicles are included in the ICE or EV 'stats', given some use older style NiMH etc tech, others Li-Ion just like full EVs. Like with diesels and the so-called 'environmental credentials' touted in the mid-late 90s (really only CO2 back then), many 'reports' by 'experts' are often clouded by the politics of the day, egos of those involved in them and lots of money via grants which, in my experience, often skews results in order to attract it and keep it coming.

With all the talk of serious EV fires and 'unserious' petrol fires. Can I just chip in that if any fire serious or not occurs in my vicinity, you'll not find me for dust. So in that regard exactly what is the difference?

• batteries fail after a few years (they don't),
• range anxiety (now less of an issue with fast charging),
• affordability (now close or similar to ICE),
• charging network (now 3 times more public points in last 3 years
• etc etc.

Terry you have missed colossal depreciation from your list and reluctance of dealers to take EVs in part exchange !

Replacement aftermarket battery acks for MBW i3 are costing c £6k fitted with at least 50% more than the original range.

My eight year old BMW I3 has such bad battery degradation that real capacity now is 103% of the maker's quoted capacity when new. (it was conservatively rated for eight year warranty purposes).

Most EV doomsters have no real world experience and are not worth reading.

Edited by SLO76 on 30/05/2025 at 08:44

Hi, Yes but I'm looking at the 320m range vs 201m range. That's the book figures of course. More is better!

MG4 64 and 77kwh models are NMC. Only the entry level model is LFP at the moment.

An EV is lot simpler than an ICE car - so it should be more reliable. Only issue is the battery - which will be invaribly become obsolete when newer EVs come in the future.

IMHO EVs should come with replaceable batteries of standard sizes. One should be able to increase range by adding more batteries or replacing them when necessary.

Interchangeable battery packs are a great idea in principle, but no more realistic a proposition than manufacturers getting together to create engines that’ll, say, come out of a Ford and drop straight into a Vauxhall.

Whoever heard about interchangeable batteries? Now where did I put my spare rechargeable AAAs for my PVR remote control? ;-)

Note also PC components are essentially standardised by made by all different manufacturers, and be swapped out as long as a minimum compatibility criteria is met and they have the same connector type/size.

One of the main reasons why certain tech became so cheap - like PCs, VCRs, DIN sized ICE in cars etc was because industry standards for size, how they generally worked / interfaced with other devices (including electrical requirements) was brought in.

Yes, it can limit to a small degree what they can do, but the same happens again once a replacement tech comes along, like DVDs replacing VHS cassettes, and blu-rays slowly doing the same to DVDs.

Cars up until recently mostly had OBDII connectors that any aftermarket cheapo reader could utilise, although the expensive top name ones are much better.

This all shows it can be done, if there's the will to do so. It should also reduce costs by standardising many parts. I do suspect much of the move to ban ICE cars and move to EVs is designed by the powers-that-be to price the ordinary user off the road, hence why standardisation of this type may not become 'a thing'.

‘ I’ve yet to see the R4 in the metal ‘ Available to preview and order in July, I believe early hand raisers will get their cars in September. I’ve got one being delivered end of June/first day or two of July.

If you were sitting on the fence about deciding whether or not to get an EV, tonight's TV programme won't have have talked you into getting one.

And that was without mentioning anything about that nice Mr Musk and his adventures in recent weeks.

Speaking personally I wasn't on the fence and am unlikely to clamber on to it in the foreseeable.

What was tonight's TV programme?

And their getting cheaper second hand. A old Renault Zoe is on a/t at the moment. Still good for a 100m range , recall the average trip is 35m. A shade over two grand. Make a cracking second car.

The specific one I looked at was battery owned, I dropped lease ones. I agree a lease is less desirable, but if the battery should fail ..while on the hook to replace it? You or the lease company?

Not me selling this honest..

www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202505272866786?a...e

Edited by Ethan Edwards on 05/06/2025 at 14:58

The end of the $7,500 federal credit for EV purchases may have annoyed Musk a little. The effect on Tesla sales will be interesting.

I have a feeling that reports of Tesla’s demise are a little premature. They haven’t had a Model Y to sell for a little while whilst they wait for the 2025 model to come on stream. Where they are in 6 months will be a more accurate barometer of the ‘Musk Effect’. Especially following today’s news that Trump and Musk have fallen out.

Teslas UK registrations are down from 16200 to just over 15000 in the UK so far this year. Hardly a collapse and actually quite good considering their main model has had a change over.

The incident began around 00:00 UTC on June 3 when smoke was observed emanating from a deck carrying electric vehicles during the vessel’s passage from Yantai, China to Lázaro Cárdenas, Mexico. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, the 600-foot Pure Car and Truck Carrier (PCTC) was transporting 3,159 vehicles, including 65 fully electric vehicles and 681 partial hybrid electric vehicles. Despite the crew’s activation of emergency firefighting protocols and deployment of onboard fire suppression systems, the intensity of the fire forced crew to abandon ship. All 22 crew members were safely evacuated via lifeboat and rescued by the good samaritan M/V Cosco Hellas, with no injuries reported. Salvage & firefighting tug on it’s way but won’t get to the ship’s location until June 9th. gcaptain.com/resolve-marine-mobilizes-salvage-team.../

The last one of these that people got excited about wasn't caused by an EV. In fact, no EVs on board were damaged. I can't find a mention of a significant transporter fire caused by an EV. It seems that 12v electrics are quite commonly the cause.

gcaptain.com/a-brief-look-back-at-recent-car-carri.../

The incident began around 00:00 UTC on June 3 when smoke was observed emanating from a deck carrying electric vehicles during the vessel’s passage from Yantai, China to Lázaro Cárdenas, Mexico. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, the 600-foot Pure Car and Truck Carrier (PCTC) was transporting 3,159 vehicles, including 65 fully electric vehicles and 681 partial hybrid electric vehicles. Despite the crew’s activation of emergency firefighting protocols and deployment of onboard fire suppression systems, the intensity of the fire forced crew to abandon ship. All 22 crew members were safely evacuated via lifeboat and rescued by the good samaritan M/V Cosco Hellas, with no injuries reported. Salvage & firefighting tug on it’s way but won’t get to the ship’s location until June 9th. gcaptain.com/resolve-marine-mobilizes-salvage-team.../

The last one of these that people got excited about wasn't caused by an EV. In fact, no EVs on board were damaged. I can't find a mention of a significant transporter fire caused by an EV. It seems that 12v electrics are quite commonly the cause.

gcaptain.com/a-brief-look-back-at-recent-car-carri.../

Awww don't spoil these folks fun. They are sure the Great Fire of London was actually caused by a Tesla dealership in Pudding Lane opening in 1666.

Odd though how only GB News is carrying this story prominently, otherwise it's a news blackout (or buried that it's unlikely to be found) on the MSM. Even if the cause is established as 'something else', the fact that cars with lots of Li-ion batteries are on board and the crew's own attempt to put out the fire failed and they all evacuated, to me says they are scared of the consequences if the fire started with or has reached / will reach the EVs or PHEVs.

Note that the GB News report said that smoke was seen from the vicinity of where the EVs were stored. Obviously that doesn't confirm whether they are the cause, but again, them being there will likely make fire-fighting and salvage of the ship very difficult, if not impossible.

I somehow doubt if that would've been the case had the vehicles all been 'traditional' ones without Li-ion batteries in them.

Not sure how they’ll get around the production/storage/transportation/handling issues of hydrogen on site, but I’d imagine they’ve given it some thought.

Battery EVs are only green if they have green electricity to charge the battery. If you have green electricity you can also produce green hydrogen where you need it.

Would be interesting to know if anyone has compared the efficiency of converting green electricity to motive power via [a battery and an electric motor] versus [hydrogen and an ICE].

CCTV images show electric Mercedes explode into flames on family's driveway | ITV News Anglia

So many threads on this. You should know there is a risk that the car might explode, and burn your house down while you sleep. And, that 2nd hand EV's, are prob being sold because the battery is no longer holding optimum charge, and it costs as much as a new car to replace.

Yes, there are many so why post another?

You should know a petrol or diesel car can also explode and burn your house down. And it's more likely to than an EV - so you may want to think about that when purchasing your next vehicle if you are worried about it.

Most EVs will be sold for the same reason an ICE one is - someone wants to get something different/newer/end of a lease - generally the battery will last longer than the car so you have no need to worry about the cost of it as it's unlikely to happen.

That's two things you don't need to worry about now :-)

Been out and about (as a passenger) in the new BYD Dolphin Surf today. Pricing is expected to start at c£18,000, and for that you get a car that’s a midge under 4m long, but a bit narrower and taller than a typical hatch. We’ve had four adults in today in reasonable comfort - you can’t get five in because there’s no middle seat in the back. There are a couple of motor and battery options (BYD’s Blade technology, in LFP chemistry) and it seems to be very nicely finished. The ride seemed good around the highways and byways of North London, and it does seem to be good value.

Looks more of a "proper" all-round car than the Dacia Spring (which hasn't thus far sold all that well).

I've been in a Seal and an Atto now and been very pleasantly surprised how well finished they were. The Seal in particularly seems an accomplished car and drivers I've spoken to rate it highly.

I'm not surprised dealers who in many cases have been treated appalling by "legacy" manufacturers in recent years have jumped ship to something new.

News that Pro Pod charging has been sold to EDF after a disappointing take up of EVs from private buyers .

Maybe the company accountants and BIK are making the decisions on which cars their employees are allowed to own ?

If as I suspect most non commercial EV owners are like me, and only use a public charger when on trips longer than their vehicles range or some other emergency usage. Then 99.99% of the time they'll charge from home.

EV economics really only make sense for us private owners if you can home charge. Take yesterday i drove 75m to Colchester and back. Cost me 1.89p. If Id have used public chargers 15.98 which would you choose? I'm Four years into EV ownership and loving it. But the key is you have to be able to home charge.

Exactly, and how many people in the UK live in homes with no parking space nearby or accessible to charge? Quite a lot.

If people want (rather than being forced) into buying an EV, then fine, but they should pay for all the associated costs, especially as a large percentage of them could afford the real cost (rather than subsidised via various means) of purchase of them and charging and any additional / upgraded infrastructure and generating plants needed to facilitate home and public charging.

That includes shops and business who likely impart the cost onto all their consumers / clients, even if they don't own an EV.

Note that the EV ownership experience may be great for some, but for a large swathe (and likely the majority) of the population, the extra taxes and cross-subsidisation of products (including by pension funds), often for ideological / virtue-signalling reasons, is gradually impoverishing them whilst transferring huge sums from the less well off to those already well off, especially those at the very top.

I would have far less of a problem (as I am not a socialist) had the change been organic from the market because consumers actually wanted such changes and they benefitted everyone reasonably equally, but that patently isn't the case.

That includes the big problems associated with EV battery life/safety, range and the risk of buying an EV that could suddenly be worthless scr@p because of such issues as it gets older, because such owners can least afford the high cost of repairs and the inherent uncertainty of the remaining lifespan of electrical devices compared to mechanical ones.

Take yesterday i drove 75m to Colchester and back. Cost me 1.89p. If Id have used public chargers 15.98

I assume you mean £1.89 ? Or you would be getting free motoring ? :-)

It would depend on the nature of the electricity source. In Germany, the cost of electricity is often negative around midday, when the solar farms are at maximum output.

Just been reading, and I’ve done no research so far to validate this, but it’s stated that we’ll have to triple our electricity production over the next ten years not to power EV’s but to run data centres to generate AI content.

Those data centres are already churning out heat, contributing a lot to global warming. Probably every one of us is dumping irrelevant stuff like photos in the 'cloud' thinking it costs b*gger-all.

This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 16 *****

Edited by Xileno on 14/06/2025 at 19:58