Graham Butcher

Once again, I fully acknowledge what you are saying, but I was asking specifically about the various points raised in Mark McCann's video, which you never watched and yet still commented on, so that is demonstrating the typical Ostrich principle of head in sand, blow you jack, I'm alright principles that many YouTubers accuse the EV evangelists of doing, and just creating arguments which are completely unnecessary because they have already formulated their opinions and have closed their minds to anything that pose a threat to their viewpoints. By not actually watching the video and paying attention to the points that Mark is raising, you are just adding more fuel to those arguments and proving them right, surely you must understand that? You are as good as saying that nobody else is right or has any valid points, you're the only one who has it correct! Is that the message that you wish to convey to the world?

Thanks for your honesty, but the fact is that not all EV cars are using LFP, are they, the ones you use maybe, but not all, and that was only one small part of the information contained within that video. It is also true that Cobalt is used in steel making and other things, so while the Cobalt aspect may be less indicative of EV's, it is still not out of the frame and still needs exposing for the other uses that force the kind of things exposed in the video. There is so much more in that video that also affects so many people, so why bother to make a comment about something based on a single snapshot, it just makes everything else, valueless. Its like your video of the Xpeng P7, actually watching video, it is just Electric Viking talking about it, and he is only going on what info he can glean from what maker claims, he was not there and actually witnessed the event, and the claim that the cars did not overhead etc, breakdown etc cannot be verified. If that feat actually did happen, it could not be repeated in the wild as it needed to have a massive power supply and charger for instance, lets all see these things demonstrated on the world stage in front of the public and world press as witnesses. He makes claims about LeMans 24Hr ICE cars nearly all breakdown and overhead during the endurance race, which again is not strictly true. The entrants would not bother entering the cars if they had not been thoroughly tested before hand and they thus had a high degree of confidence that they would last. At least I do tend to watch the videos that people post, before making comments, its being open minded enough to be put in a position where maybe I could learn something new, but sadly, the only thing I often learn is I can see who some people call some EV owners/drivers evangelists, because they are not in the slightest little bit open minded.

Now, while I respect much of what you say, I'm sure you are already aware of that anyway, but there is no way that you have watched the video in the time you took you to reply (unless you had previously watched in the last few hours). So which is it, are saying the above based on you own personal experience, or are you jumping onto the green bandwagon as so many EV owners/drivers do because they actually believe all they have been told about the whole green status of them etc???

I have just watched this video, it paints a very gloomy picture of the electric car, its batteries, the infrastructure, the whole green status, the raw materials, corner cutting, data harvesting, costs, recycling untruths, etc etc. If this is true and I can some elements on this video that ring very loud as being true, as we can all witness some of what is being claimed in the video, for ourselves every single day in our own neighbourhood. Genuine thoughts on this please, and please note, that I'm not posting this as anti EV as I know some of you do, and one person in particular most certainly does. Like Mark Mccann, I'm more concerned about other aspects of the big push towards electrification as he covers in this video, there is no hiding from the fact that every-time you plug an electric car in, you give away so much about yourself that others can make use of, and even use it against your best interests long term.

This is a very interesting and informative video just been released by Harrys Garage and is making a more compelling argument for having PHEV, even if it is actually inflating the amount of miles being done on battery alone, when it is so clearly not the case, as Harry mentions.

Because let nothing derail the narrative.

Well to be honest, surely unless we are all just burying our heads in the sand, we must have expected a hike in such events as more and more electric vehicles of all kinds come onto the British roads and also of course as batteries themselves begin to age more and the effects of aging and or any manufacturing defects begin to show themselves. There will become a time when unless we reverse the current push towards electrification, that electric electric vehicles are more common then ICE ones and any problems with them will become more evident and difficult to conceal (if that is what is going on, it certainly seems to be the case in China as footage is appearing of many more electric fires and of firefighters actively hacking off the badges that would give away the brand and type of car involved). Are we still in the Betamax v VHS, or the CFL v LED phase? This a video of a lorry on the M25 in Essex on 13th Aug this year, it was carrying tyres, and it closed the road for the entire day and night as they had to resurface the road before opening it up again.

That is the point, none of those thing you mention are effective at putting out a Lithium Ion fire as all they do is deprive the fire of the much need oxygen to continue, but the batteries generate masses of oxygen so they continue to burn unabated, as demonstrated with the recent of loss of 3 ships which were carrying BEV and they were flooded with CO2 which on normal fires will stop it dead in its tracks, along with anyone in the ships holds / decks that the CO2 was released into if the are not wearing BA sets. Actually it has also been proven that the use of fire blankets also actually increases the risk to firefighters when removing the blanket.

Well sorry to deflate your ego yet again, but you stated in you earlier reply that the firefighters reported that they witnessed flowing rivers of fire. This would be correct as if a fuel tank ruptures and fuel leaks to the ground and that fuel will then flow anywhere it can do so and if it ignites, spread the fire. That was never in question. It is your bias that is showing, yes I did say that initially the fire looked like is was the same as an EV fire. The DLVA stated that the car that started it was a diesel, OK But here is the big difference, the Bedfordshire Fire report noted that the diesel range rover was fitted with a plastic fuel tank. Now like it or not, they are far safer than a steel and as plastic is far better heat insulator than steel, then if a the fire was right beneath the plastic tank, that plastic would insulate the diesel / peter within it from the heat, the fuel would also cool the plastic as it will absorb the heat, but it would eventually melt/deform and then release its contents. This does not normally happen when fire fighters have plenty of free access and they can normally extinguish petrol fire within minutes, electric no way. You also mentioned the Kings Dock Liverpool car park (started by a petrol car), but both the fires were on 3rd floors with no access by the fire engines, resulting in a lengthy delay in getting men and hoses onto the 3rd floor before they could start tackling blaze. On the BFRS report they also mention other airport carpark fires around the world and those that faired the worst were indeed multistorey ones where access directly by the fire engines was not possible. Your perceived bias that you claim is mine, is I suggest more your unwillingness to consider that EVs pose any greater risk to the planet or people or property then ICE cars do. Whereas, I'm only saying that we need to do for more research on the total impact / implications of EVs and batteries, BEFORE we make them compulsory for all new car sales. Until such times as we throw away all the years of experience we have ICE and fossil fuel fires, we should be taking it very slowly , let the market decide and let the industry solve the issues posed. All we have at the moment is legislation leading us down the path towards full electrification before we are ready for it. The crews bracing themselves for a rise in electric car fires - BBC News Covers EV fires and also mentions Luton airport fire and it also clearly states that no precise records are held by fire brigades as to the true split between petrol/diesel/electric fires so if they don't know how do the so called experts claim that EVs are considerably less likely to catch fire? The fire Brigade also state that there were EV cars also involved in the Luton fire which made it so in their words "intense" Perhaps these might actually help you to see another side of the argument, without causing an argument. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/paSF3mNfaFI?feature=share

Agreed, but it is the severity of the problem if and when it happens. It is that aspect that they need to address. If they want the world to run electric cars, then there are still problems that they need to address.

So it seems that the much applauded LFP battery is just as hazardous as NMC chemistry battery which is why I'm concerned that we are being lulled into a false sense of security and safety for all kinds reasons, vested interests, misinformation being given to decision and policy makers etc. Electric Boat Explodes While Charging: LFP Batteries

Well done to Polestar for their claim that range anxiety is now a thing of the past with one of their cars driving 581 miles on a single charge with a team of special drivers and the trip took them nearly 23 hours with driver change every three hours, and they even had the Police claiming that they were driving too slowly. Pure insanity.

Sorry folks to drag this out even longer, but I really feel that it is essential to point out to the oracle of all knowledge and maybe one of the most blinkered people here, that he has managed to totally ignore the huge point that in both of those car park fires, there was zero fire suppression systems installed. Not that they would have actually put the fires out, but they would certainly have had a slowing down effect on the spread of the fire, the running fuel fire was more than likely due to the delay in actually getting any fire fighting equipment to the actual point of the fire, not the car park, but to the actual fire itself, which in both cases was on the third floor of a multistorey carpark, both of which were designed with no sprinklers and with zero access to fire appliances, meaning that they had to get fire fighters and hoses up 3 floors before they could even start tackling the fire. This itself took some time to accomplish, and needs to be added onto the 10 minutes that the fire brigade took to arrive Name me one multistorey car that has been designed to allow vehicles larger than transit vans to access them, let alone fire engines, which would have been able to get to the fire before firefighters on foot dragging hoses with them could. So to suggest that the collapse of the structure and the loss of the cars and building was all down to the wicked Dino juice running along the floors is just showing his total bias and cannot accept that the presence of electric cars within the fire itself made things considerably worse, as they just cannot deal with them in an affective manner. They burn fire hotter then fossil fuel and they just have to leave them to burn themselves out which is far longer then a ICE car.

There maybe some truth to that statement if you change diesels to petrols, as has already been well proven, I'm not saying that diesels cannot burn, I have already publicly acknowledged that fact having seen way to many badly maintained buses catch fire while I was working with buses many years ago. You can throw a burning match into a pool of diesel and it will extinguish the match and no fire or explosion will result. Now try that trick with petrol........ Diesel demands a far more concentrated source of ignition before it will consider burning. The point that you constantly fail to see and accept is when the EV battery enters into thermal runaway, and this shows your actual biases towards ICE vehicles when you cannot even agree and accept that when EV batteries burn, there is no currently known method to put them out, they burn hotter, produce very toxic gases and they can then self ignite at a later date even when it is thought that they have finished burning. Even the much touted LFP battery is not as safe as they make you think they are. Yes, they are less likely to burn as easily, but what they do produce when in thermal runaway is massive amount of hydrogen, and you certainly do not want to be anywhere near that when that goes off. The upshot of all comes down to the following, a petrol or diesel based fire is extremely easy to deal with and fire depts can and do knock down such fires very quickly, they have many decades of experience in doing so, but when it comes down to an EV fire, that does not happen and the general consensus globally fire depts is to try and prevent it from spreading to neighbouring cars or structures and let the EV burn itself out.

Finally a bit of sense, but I still don't fully agree with your first point about the need for a back up car, that would only apply for those that venture out on longer journeys during the day, not so much for those that live in a city and do short local trips to the shops, etc and charge rebelliously every night when they have used the car so it will always be fully topped in the morning, even though they only are doing maybe 10 to 20 miles a day. It as I have always said (take notice @wyx087 ) there should always be the option of personal choice and that means that if an electric car ticks all of you requirements, then knock yourself out. I expect that if there was to be a mandatory maximum size of the size of people TV screens of say 40" that I expect there would be a huge public backlash to that. It should be always be upto the public to decide on what they want, and is exactly what I want to see for electric cars. There is zero doubt in my mind, that once the safety issues and the ability to charge cheaply for everyone have been addressed that the vast majority of people will opt for an electric car.

Closed minded narrative is precisely what you are exhibiting when you try and rubbish any viewpoint that does not just blindly follow the electric and net zero narrative that you seem to have swallowed hook line and sinker, without even considering the possible negatives, possibly blinded by the much cheapness on offer was the draw I did say did I not, "what if", I expect next you'll be claiming that it was public knowledge that there was a nuclear bomb being developed and that they would be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There are many things that are secret in this world, some are for the right reasons, and some not so. I have made my position on electric vehicles, clear, not anti them, just anti the current forced adoption of them until all the associated problems that they also bring along are resolved.

Lithium batteries were actually invented by a big oil company Exxon and here is the interesting part and may explain the catalyst for the rise of the EV cars, and it may also explain why big oil has not really been visible to that degree opposing EVs. Everyone has talking about the worlds governments being pressurised by lobby groups working for secretive cash rich organisations who have a vested interest in governments going down a particular path. Recently there has been some discussion on the validity of many scientific papers and experimentation results giving a predetermined conclusion in return for expected results, more funding becomes available and so on. This video shows the development of the batteries, now, "what if" big oil never gave up all rights to the intellectual rights.........

The point of the video was also about the massive price hikes the Hybrid and PHEV have over the ICE, he actually makes the point about the amount of miles you would have to drive in pure electric mode to recoup that price difference, which is for a lot of people many years of motoring, which if you don't that many local miles, could mean that you pay a lot more for allegedly being green.☹️

Well, taking 3 cars, all based on the same chassis and model version, Car Wow have done some real world tests and the actual results are going to open your eyes a bit and also sort of reinforces why I think it pays to have and keep an open mind, especially if you a private motorist and thus unable gain any benefit in the form of grants and or taxation.

For that matter, maybe they could enlist assistance from Imperial College school of mines, London. IIRC, the minerals and the lithium was deemed to be not commercially viable to extract as the quantity is not large enough and it is difficult to get at.

Once again, you seem to have deliberately misinterpreted in order to make a point that was not relevant, it is not the car makers who are pushing the electric agenda. Most of the car makers are only too happy to continue making ICE cars, something that they have many years of experience of doing just that, no need for expensive tooling up for new technologies.

One wonders just would what would have been the result in you never had enough left to cover the subsequent £45 charges after the first one?

That is part of the problem, so many people have already formed closed minds and as such anyone who has a different opinion must be on the losers side of the debate, because we are not following the current authority lead narrative. I've always stated that I have an open mind, and I don't just take what the authorities tell us as being 100% factual, as many of us have already witnessed some massive climb downs and reversals. When I was going to college learning my craft, I was inspired by a number of the professors there who used to say "as you gradually learn something, that's when you also realise just how little you do know" and also "Never accept that something your told by authoritative figures as being 100% factual, because if that were true then there is no room for new discoveries". I was taught that if you do X and the result is Y, that is just the start for the inquisitive, and is a point where most people will stop at, but the inquisitive will ask, why does that result happen, what if I did Z, what is the outcome then and why is that different, this how great discoveries are made, but also not all discoveries are great, is the Nuclear bomb a great discovery, when it has the potential to wipe out life on earth?? We should all have inquisitive minds and question things, not just accept what we are told.

Absolutely right, in that case, they are being penalised for not being in the right wealth bracket and location of the country to be able to afford off street parking/driveway etc so once again it would be case of the upper and middle classes who stand to benefit the most from running an electric on terms of pure running costs alone. Ignore the alleged environmental benefits of such, as they have not been proven beyond any doubt, it is way too early for that. Yes it is true that at the actual point of them being used, the environment will benefit. But what about the sheer devastation and the high toxicity of the environment at the locations where the raw minerals etc are actually mined and the health effects on those doing the hard graft mining them? There is a cost to be paid there in the future for sure, which may be worse then the damage done by fossil fuels, only time will actually prove which side was most correct. Future generations could either praise or curse us once the real truth is known.

@Ootohere That is the problem, regardless where in the world the oil reserves or any other commodity is discovered, it does little to help the natives closest to the discovery, other then maybe create new jobs for the locals, is that the price of that commodity is always going to be directly linked to the global price for that commodity per unit of whatever it is measured in?