I doubt this would be public information, so bs. — frank

So you believe that the UK Ministry of Defense is not worried if "top secret" information ends up in Chinese hands.

If you don't believe that this is public information then read this news story. It is written by Jerome Starkey, Defence Editor (Published: 17:16 ET, Feb 5 2025, Updated: 17:28 ET, Feb 5 2025)
https://www.the-sun.com/news/13464048/defence-chiefs-electric-cars-chinese-spy

Here is some juicy stuff from the news story. . :scream:

The Sun understands a security notice was issued across the department banning sensitive conversations in electric cars.

A source said: “It’s crazy. A lot of these ­electric cars are used by senior officers, who know a lot of secrets.

"They work on sensitive missions.

“It’s normal to discuss work when they’re driving, especially if everyone in the car is cleared to the same level or working on the same project.

“They aren’t used to thinking the car might be listening — especially if the car has been issued by the UK MoD.”

A second source said: “These cars are everywhere now, from Special Forces headquarters to nuclear submarine bases.

The climate denier’s love affair with a YouTube rando continues. — Mikie

You haven't been able to disprove a single thing that MGUY has said.

I and everyone I know loves their EVs. — Mikie

This statement implies that you have an EV. Does it sting to know that you have been fooled into buying a pile of crap? . :rofl:

That kind of sounds like bs — frank

Frank, which parts of this story do you think are bs?

1) - Do you accept that the UK Ministry of Defense has bought hundreds of Chinese EVs for its employees in order to meet Net Zero targets?

2) - Do you accept that Chinese EVs might cause some security problems?

3) - Do you accept that the UK Ministry of Defense is not junking the cars?

4) - Do you accept that the the UK Ministry of Defense has told its employees and/or "top brass" to stop talking in EVs?

If you accept (1), (2), and (3), but don't accept (4), then that would mean that the UK Ministry of Defense is not worried if "top secret" information ends up in Chinese hands.

What do you think? Please tell us why you think that this story is bs.

HILARIOUS! Defense Ministry says "NO TALKING" in Chinese EVs!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GumbaWxctOc

Another of MGUYs brilliant videos.

Summary
The UK Ministry of Defense has bought hundreds of Chinese EVs for its employees in order to meet Net Zero targets. They have suddenly realized that this might cause some security problems. But instead of junking the cars and buying new ones that don't spy on their occupants or surroundings, they've come up with a cheaper solution. The brilliant solution is to tell Ministry of Defense employees to shut up when they're traveling in these EVs. Top brass have been ordered to stop talking in EVs over fears that Chinese makers will eavesdrop on conversations. A ministry spokesperson said protecting National Security is the foundation of everything we do. We have strict security procedures in place to ensure sensitive information is protected. But apparently that all takes second place to Net Zero.

1. Stop using fossil fuels that are increasing climate change and take other urgent measures to stabilise the environment. The Humble Pie adaptation. — unenlightened

How is that working out for you?

2. Reduce the population of humans by 95% or so, and let the remaining few continue to burn baby burn, moving from place to place as each in turn becomes uninhabitable. The Mad Max adaptation. — unenlightened

You have a very limited imagination if these 2 options are all that you can come up with.

The population of humans in many countries is falling naturally because the fertility rate is below the rate needed to maintain the population. More than 20 countries, including Italy, Japan, Poland, Portugal, South Korea, Spain and Thailand, will see their numbers diminish by at least half by the year 2100, according to projections from a major study.

Another 34 countries will probably decline by 25–50%, including China, with a forecasted 48% decline.

These forecasts suggest good news for the environment, with less stress on food production systems and lower carbon emissions. The analysis suggests that as women become more educated and have access to reproductive health services, they choose to have less than 1.5 children on average.

I and everyone I know loves their EVs. — Mikie

How many people does a person who lives in their mother's basement know? . :rofl:

[EVs are] only getting better. — Mikie

That is not surprising since they are crap at the moment. . :scream:

Ostriches, and Ñandues, are magnificent creatures — Arcane Sandwich

Emus are another cool member of the Ratite family. Cassowaries are also incredible.

Kiwis are the "black sheep" of the ratite family. Kiwis have some unusual features:
- they are small and nocturnal
- the kiwi is the only bird in the world with nostrils at the tip of its beak
- Kiwi feathers are soft, long, and loose, and feel more like fur than bird feathers. They are shaggy, warm, and fluffier than most bird feathers
- kiwis have whiskers, like a cat
- they have one of the largest eggs in proportion to body size of any order of bird in the world (up to 20% of the female's weight)
- most birds have hollow bones to aid in flight. The kiwi has marrow in its bones, just like a human. Their powerful legs make up a third of their body weight and allow them to run as fast as a human

↪Agree-to-Disagree Your Forum name read backwards would be Disagree-to-Agree.

Ever thought about that? — Arcane Sandwich

You're very smart. I say that unironically. It is rare to find people of your intellect, nowadays. :grin:

I do refuse to follow other people like sheep (to the slaughter).

I am a naturally cynical and skeptical person. When somebody tells me something I immediately analyse it to try and find a valid reason why it is not true.

Scientists are meant to be skeptical. Finding a skeptical scientist today is difficult. We have a situation that I call "science by bureaucracy" (I am not the first person to use this term). The IPCC cherry-picks the science that suits its agenda, and scientists are rewarded for producing science that supports that agenda.

Ostriches, and Ñandues, are magnificent creatures, and I will defend them with my words, since they lack the capacity to speak for themselves. No bird has ever refused to adapt. Do not slander the Ostriches with your foul metaphors. — Arcane Sandwich

:up: :100:

Lithium-ion battery degradation conditions
- high temperature
- low temperature
- high charging current
- high discharging current
- high state of charge / overcharge
- low state of charge / overdischarge

Lithium-ion batteries inevitably degrade with time and use. Almost every component of the battery is affected, including the anode, cathode, electrolyte, separator, and current collectors.

Lithium-ion batteries can degrade even if you don't charge them beyond 80% and don't discharge them below 20%.

If you don't charge them beyond 80% and don't discharge them below 20% then the range of the EV is noticeably reduced, and range anxiety becomes worse.

Gasoline cars don't have these problems... :scream:

This is what happens when you reach the limits to growth, and by and large, we have reached and surpassed them. Overshoot leads to collapse.
— unenlightened

It was obvious that capitalism wasn’t sustainable 100 years ago. Now it’s a fact. — Mikie

Adapt and survive, or don't adapt and die

When faced with changing environmental conditions an organism can either:
- adapt to the new environmental conditions and survive
- not adapt to the new environmental conditions and die
- if a whole species does not adapt to the new environmental conditions then it will eventually become extinct

Essentially, adaptation is the key to survival in a changing world, and failure to adapt leads to death and potential extinction. :scream:

A slow warming isn't bad because we can adapt. Wild swings are a different story. — frank

Careful Frank. Mikie will call you a "denier" if you don't agree with him.

Please stop thinking for yourself. Mikie has exclusive access to the truth. :rofl:

@jorndoe @unenlightened @Mikie

Mortality impacts of the most extreme heat events
Matthews, T., Raymond, C., Foster, J. et al. Nat Rev Earth Environ (2025)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-024-00635-w#Sec9

Have any of you actually read this article?

I haven't had time to carefully read the whole article, but while scanning it I found this interesting paragraph:

The unsurvivable threshold of older adults has also been breached. These exceedances include six-hourly means (Fig. 2a, compare red lines with darker blue line), with almost 2% of the land surface crossing these thresholds, largely in North Africa, around the Persian/Arabian Gulf, and in parts of the Indo-Gangetic Plain (Fig. 3f). This statistic contrasts starkly with the general lack of mass mortality reported in those regions (Table 1), especially as exceedances of all thresholds computed with ERA5 are probably conservative because reanalysis data underestimate the intensity of extreme heat at local scales and within living environments. The lack of reported mass mortality from unsurvivable heat episodes for older adults might, therefore, reflect limitations in health surveillance data, physiological thresholds that are too pessimistic for those living in the hottest regions, or the impact of personal and community adaptations that reduce vulnerability. Similar discrepancies have been noted with uncompensable heat events for young adults.

(my bold)

So they worked out the unsurvivable thresholds and explained what would happen if these uncompensable thresholds were crossed. They then looked at the real world and found that some of the unsurvivable thresholds had already been crossed. But they couldn't find the predicted mass mortality.

This applied to older adults, but they point out that similar discrepancies have been noted with uncompensable heat events for young adults.

Don't you just hate it when the real world doesn't do what (climate) scientists think it will do. :scream:

@Mikie

Koch paychecks seem to be strong motivators to lie

Why haven't I received my Koch paycheck yet?... :rofl:

@Mikie

Dana Nuccitelli

:rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl:

I concluded already that the project of the oligarchs is to let climate change wipe out most of the human population and replace them with more amenable and less needy intelligent robots. — unenlightened

Haven't the oligarchs watched the Terminator film series?

I'll be back. :cool:

Herrington found that the data aligned with the predictions made back in 1972, which had a worst-case scenario of economic growth coming to a halt at the end of this decade and society collapsing around 10 years later.

So present 2024 data align with the 1972 "worst-case scenario". That rather indicates that they were more erring on the complacent side than the alarmist side, wouldn't you say? — unenlightened

I think that your interpretation of what Herrington said is incorrect (what Herrington said is ambiguous).

If you break it down into statements:
1) - back in 1972 they had a number of scenarios (e.g. best case, business as usual, worst case, etc.)
2) - they made different predictions based on these different scenarios.
3) - the present 2024 data align with the predictions made in 1972 (but they don't explicitly say which scenario this is based on)
4) - they then say that the 1972 predictions had a worst-case scenario of economic growth coming to a halt at the end of this decade and society collapsing around 10 years later

You have assumed that (3) and (4) are referring to the same scenario (worst case). But (4) may just be additional information which is not referring to the scenario that (3) is based on.

==========

This is similar to the situation with NASA scientist James Hansen. In a paper in 1988 he selected 3 different emissions scenarios, one in which emissions continued to increase (A), one in which the rate stayed similar to what it was in the 1980s (B), and one in which they basically stop in 2000 (C).

Each scenario gave a different temperature prediction.

The actual emissions were closest to scenario A (emissions continued to increase ), but the actual temperature was somewhere between scenario B's and scenario C's temperature predictions.

Alarmists like to claim that James Hansen's temperature predictions were correct. But they were not the temperatures that he predicted for the scenario that actually occurred.

I guess that desperate people will deny the facts and withdraw into a fantasy world. :rofl:

So present 2024 data align with the 1972 "worst-case scenario". That rather indicates that they were more erring on the complacent side than the alarmist side, wouldn't you say? — unenlightened

You should watch the YouTube video called "Everyone is Giving Up On Climate Goals".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3sguj9m8ZQ

This one is not made by MGUY, the well known petrol-head.

This one is made by Sabine Hossenfelder, the well known petrol-head who has a PhD in physics.

But quantum computers are God! — frank

You don't need a quantum computer.

The answer has already been computed by the supercomputer "Deep Thought" in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)". The answer is 42.

Now you just have to work out what the question is.

The Lad Bible is infallible.
— unenlightened

Lol- Imagine the level of a mind that reads that crap— let alone takes it seriously…to say nothing of actually referencing it. — Mikie

Mikie shoots himself in the foot again. How many holes are there in your foot now Mikie?

I put a link to the article. I bet that you didn't even look at it. :scream:

If you had looked at the article then you would have found that the article has links to where it got information from.

Back in 1972, the team at MIT used computer modelling, which evaluated several data patterns relating to the likes of population, natural resources and energy use.

Other studies that support the prediction
At the time, the report wasn’t taken too seriously and did attract some ridicule, the Guardian reports. However, before you start to feel smug, you should know that in 2009, a different team of researchers did a similar study which produced similar results.

Published by American Scientist, the more recent study concluded that the model’s results were ‘almost exactly on course some 35 years later in 2008 (with a few appropriate assumptions)'.

"It is important to recognise that its predictions have not been invalidated and, in fact, seem quite on target. We are not aware of any model made by economists that is as accurate over such a long time span," the study said.

Further to this, in 2021, Dutch sustainability researcher Gaya Herrington also affirmed the somewhat bleak predictions made in the study.

Speaking to the Guardian, Herrington said: “From a research perspective, I felt a data check of a decades-old model against empirical observations would be an interesting exercise.”

Herrington found that the data aligned with the predictions made back in 1972, which had a worst-case scenario of economic growth coming to a halt at the end of this decade and society collapsing around 10 years later.

Do I need to keep spoon-feeding you Mikie. :rofl:. When are you going to start wearing big boy pants?

So? — frank

You said "Computers are gigo". That is correct.

But I suspect that you believe that computers are gdigdo (good data in, good data out). This is pronounced "giddy giddo". :grin:

You may not believe that all computers are gdigdo, but you seem to have a lot of faith in supercomputers.

I am pointing out that even supercomputers have their limitations. Supercomputers let you make mistakes faster than when you are using an ordinary computer.

Computers are gigo — frank

But inputting good data does not guarantee good results.

There can be bugs in the programming, incorrect assumptions in the computer models, limitations in what the computer model can realistically model (e.g. clouds in climate models), and all computers (even supercomputers) have some sort of a limitation on the precision that can be used to specify numbers (e.g. 32 bits or 64 bits, floating point numbers, etc.).

Frank, this reminded me of your faith in supercomputers.

https://www.ladbible.com/news/world-news/scientists-computer-modelling-technology-ai-society-collapse-920494-20250207

Scientists used a computer to predict exactly when society will collapse

The results were pretty terrifying

A group of scientists have used a computer to try and establish exactly when society will collapse, and the results are rather daunting. (I wonder if the computer that they used was a supercomputer. :rofl: )

Through this research, the team learned that the fall of society would hit near the midpoint of the 21st century. And yes, in case you'd forgotten, that's the century we're currently in the middle of.

In fact, there's apparently less than two decades to go until the collapse. Around 17 years, to be precise, as the scientists predicted the collapse would come in 2040 (at 2:47 pm on the 5th of July :rofl: ).

:death: . :death: . :death: . :death: . :death:

:scream: . :scream: . :scream: . :scream: . :scream:

We always laughed at how slow and crap and unreliable the old crocks were in the olden days. — unenlightened

Yes, it has taken about 80 years to move from the old crocks of 1938 to the modern efficient gasoline cars of today. You shouldn't expect to be able to quickly replace the modern efficient gasoline cars of today with EVs (at their current stage of development).

Also, the "old crocks" were replaced by better cars that people wanted to buy. It didn't require government legislation to force people to move to better gasoline cars.

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. 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.

In the EU a roughly similar program to outlaw ICE vehicles is defined by fleet carbon dioxide emissions.

It's all fixable. — frank

A lot of it may be fixable, but in what time frame?

And pigs might fly. :rofl:

I am compiling a list of problems with EVs. — Agree-to-Disagree

Some problems with EVs (this is not an exhaustive list)

Limited Driving Range

Range anxiety

More Expensive to Buy

Higher insurance cost of EVs

Rapid depreciation

Higher repair costs

Parts are harder to get and are expensive

Lack of Charging infrastructure

Need to plan journeys based on location of charging stations

Long Charging Times

Queues at public chargers

Need off street parking and a charger to charge at home

May be restrictions on charging EVs in underground apartment car parks

Charging infrastructure is not very profitable as a business so there is not a lot of enthusiasm to build more charging stations

Charging stations that don't work (broken or not accepting payment)

Battery issues

Battery Degradation and Replacement Cost

Battery disposal and recycling

Problems in disasters
In hot dry conditions power companies may turn power off for a number of days to avoid the risk of sparks causing fires. Can't charge EVs. If a wildfire comes then how will you get away? Can easily keep a can of gasoline in your garage

Dangerous in a flood

Software and electronic problems

Using heating or cooling can reduce range

Faulty seals can lead to leakage (dangerous with lithium-ion batteries)

Once alight, a lithium-ion battery can be extremely difficult to extinguish
- can give off hydogen fluoride gas
- water that is used to extinguish a lithium-ion fire can be toxic

A lithium-ion battery can reignite

Impact of Temperature on Battery Performance (bad if too cold or too hot)

Dealing with extreme temperatures
- EVs generally don't cope very well with colder climates. Can cause the range to drop by an average 41%
- charging times are much slower in cold weather

Temperature sensitive batteries
Extreme heat can speed up the degradation of an EV battery pack, whereas extreme cold can negatively affect the vehicle’s range. Some counties have extreme temperatures (e.g. India, Thailand, Russia, Canada)

EVs have lower top speeds than gasoline cars because of the risk of the lithium-ion battery getting too hot

Less efficient than gasoline cars at higher speeds

Environmental Impact (e.g. if the electricity comes from a coal-powered power station)

Environmental impact of mining
Creating the lithium-ion battery pack is more environmentally harmful than the manufacturing process for an average petrol-powered car

Battery packs – There are ethical concerns about the sourcing of raw materials for electric cars and their battery packs (e.g. cobalt and lithium)

Grid Capacity

EV brakes rusting
In non-electric vehicles, the friction brakes are used so often that there is little chance for rust or corrosion to build up. However, as EVs use regenerative braking the majority of the time, their friction brakes and pads can build up rust and corrosion.

More road wear on tires because of EVs being heavy (more paticulate pollution)

EVs may be too heavy for old multi-story parking buildings

Cleaning up EVs after a disaster (e.g. fires and floods)

INSANE queue for EV charging is HILARIOUS (and tragic) - covers a number of issues
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py9huBMByvs

Some issues with towing

The Charging Conundrum (see this video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-vhSby1Kd4

The Government gets a lot of revenue from taxes on gasoline. If they lose this then they will need to find new revenue streams. EVs could provide new revenue streams (e.g. road user charges, etc.)

Risk of electricity becoming more expensive

@unenlightened @Mikie

So let's go back to your claim about the serious problems with EVs. What serious problems? — unenlightened

I am compiling a list of problems with EVs.

While I am doing that I want you to answer these questions.

1) Do you drive an EV ?

2) If you don't drive an EV then why don't you drive an EV ?

This troll should have been booted from this site a while ago. — Mikie

I think that it is you who is the troll Mikie.

- a troll is an an ugly creature often depicted as a dwarf
- they live under bridges or in their mother's basement
- they abuse anybody who is more intelligent than them (which is most people)

now wants to fire over 1,000 employees at EPA — Mikie

Is this the same EPA as the one that that brought is the "EV mandate"? :rofl:

Lets divide by two because who cares if sick and old people die only a little bit early. So that's 8 deaths in 3 years compared to 1500 deaths in 1 year. — unenlightened

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66890135

There have been more than 50,000 heat-related deaths and more than 200,000 related to cold in England and Wales since 1988, new official figures show.

Some 4,507 deaths were estimated to be linked to heat in England last year - when temperatures topped 40C. That was the highest number of estimated heat-related deaths over the last 35 years - but does not take into account population growth, and is a similar number to levels in the 1990s and early 2000s when the population was smaller.

The ONS compiled its figures based on information from the Centre for Environmental Data Analysis and created a new method to understand how temperature affects risk of death.

Their analysis also showed a sharp rise in deaths during the winter of 2010/11 when the UK saw unusually cold temperatures.

So your logic is to let 200,000 people die (who had their whole lives ahead of them) in order to let a few sick and old people live for an extra month. People are dying of cold at 4x the rate that they are dying of heat.

Why not install some air conditioning in the places where the sick and old people live. Then a little bit of global warming would save many lives (even in the hottest parts of the world), and the sick and old people would be better off (with air conditioning they could protect themselves from heat and cold).

It is a win-win situation.

For example, just heat related deaths in England and Wales (2022).
- a UKHSA analysis reported an estimated 2,985 excess deaths associated with the five heat periods in England.
- using a slightly different baseline, an Office for National Statistics (ONS) analysis reported 3,271 excess deaths associated with the five heat periods in England and Wales. — unenlightened

If you are going to start talking about excess deaths associated with heat periods then you should read the following. It provides some context for the numbers.

Point 1
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/excessmortalityduringheatperiods/englandandwales1juneto31august2022#:~:text=Each%20heat%2Dperiod%20peak%2C%20most%20notably%20that%20on%2019%20July%202022%2C%20was%20followed%20by%20a%20fall%20in%20deaths%20to%20below%20the%20average%20over%20the%20following%20days

Note that this extract comes from "ons.gov.uk", the same organisation that some of your numbers come from.

Each heat-period peak, most notably that on 19 July 2022, was followed by a fall in deaths to below the average over the following days; this suggests a short-term mortality displacement, where deaths among vulnerable individuals are ‘brought forward’ to within the heat-periods.

So the number of excess deaths associated with the five heat periods in England and Wales is not as bad as the raw numbers suggest.

Point 2
https://ourworldindata.org/part-one-how-many-people-die-from-extreme-temperatures-and-how-could-this-change-in-the-future
How many people die from extreme temperatures, and how this could change in the future
Cold deaths vastly outnumber heat-related ones, but mostly due to “moderate” rather than extremely cold conditions.

If you look at many of the “optimal temperature” curves above, you’ll find that most of us spend most of the year a bit below the optimum. We most frequently experience temperatures a bit colder than is “best”. This means most temperature-related deaths happen in “moderately cold” conditions, not on extremely cold or hot days. It’s not because the mortality risk in this zone is the highest, but the amount of time spent there is.

What’s consistent in these studies is that cold-related deaths vastly outnumber those from heat. In the Global Burden of Disease study, cold-related deaths were around four times higher than heat-related ones. The study that estimates that 7.7% of deaths were attributed to temperature found that 7.3% were from cold temperatures; 0.4% were from heat.

Globally, cold deaths are 9 times higher than heat-related ones. In no region is this ratio less than 3, and in many, it’s over 10 times higher. Cold is more deadly than heat, even in the hottest parts of the world.

Summary of point 2

Most people spend most of the year a bit colder than is "best" (a bit below the optimum).

A little bit of global warming would save many lives, even in the hottest parts of the world.

You can rely on the reliable truth of my non-agreement. On this matter I speak with authority. I am not pretending to disagree, I actually do disagree. — unenlightened

I am not doubting the sincerity of what you are saying.

You are not reliable because you are wrong. Any rational person knows that there are some serious problems with EVs, lithium batteries, solar power, wind power, infrastructure for charging EVs, infrastructure for getting electricity from where it is generated to where it is used, the fact that many people don't want an EV, the fact that EVs are not suitable for all situations, etc.

Do you accept that there are some serious problems with EVs, lithium batteries, solar power, wind power, infrastructure for charging EVs, infrastructure for getting electricity from where it is generated to where it is used, the fact that many people don't want an EV, the fact that EVs are not suitable for all situations, etc.
— Agree-to-Disagree

No. — unenlightened

By saying "No" you have proved that you are not a reliable source of information.

You are a delusional evangelist and you have your head buried in the sand.

Rational people know that there are some serious problems.

And that's why most of us will die an early death. — unenlightened

Being overly pessimistic does not help things. It often leads to depression and/or causes people to stop trying. You might be worrying about something that never happens because technology will save us..

I think that many people (especially young people) have been brainwashed into thinking that there is no hope. They attack anybody who doesn't share their pessimistic view.

Climate scientists have done a great job of scaremongering by continually predicting that things are rapidly getting worse. Children are scared stiff.

The people who are trying to save humanity and the planet are coming up with unrealistic plans, and are blaming the wrong people. They are not willing to compromise on any point so nothing ends up being done. Blocking traffic and vandalising great works of art and historical monuments (like Stonehenge) is not helping their cause. In fact it is harming their cause.

The activists who are concerned about climate change need to rethink their methods.

But I have clearly shown the evidence why MGUY is an unreliable witness — unenlightened

Sorry, I must have missed that bit. What do you mean by an unreliable witness? Someone who says things that you don't like? MGUY provides links to where he gets his information from. You can easily check that what he is saying is reliable. As long as you are not too lazy to check.

But addressing climate change is far more a matter of the collective will to change our lifestyle. — unenlightened

As far as I can see that collective will doesn't exist.

Do you accept that there are some serious problems with EVs, lithium batteries, solar power, wind power, infrastructure for charging EVs, infrastructure for getting electricity from where it is generated to where it is used, the fact that many people don't want an EV, the fact that EVs are not suitable for all situations, etc.

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. — unenlightened

It sounds like you are suffering from "penis jealousy". :razz:

New technology has sparse statistics and as problems come to light, safety regulations develop [...] But there is more than one kind of new rechargeable battery, and more variations will be developed. — unenlightened

You seem to have faith that new technology will solve the problems associated with large scale energy storage.

Why don't you have faith that new technology will solve the problems associated with climate change (e.g. the CO2 level) ?

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.

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.

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.