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.

1 hour ago, Graham Butcher said:

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.

Indeed a rather pathetic test which does not really do anything to enhance the case of EVs.

Much more relevant and meaningful is the I-90 Surge they do in the US for 3,000 miles.

The ICE reference car did it in 44.5 hours, the then Taycan 46.5 hours, about 4 % longer, and the cheaper than both Tesla model 3 LR took 48.5 hours so about 9% longer. Most of the EVs ie 5 of the 9, did it in less 50 hours ie with in about 11% of the reference ICE car. Time table in to the video at 3:31 which includes the car costs but not in journey fuel costs. Hopefully run it again this year and with new crop of EVs I would expect virtual parity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-CHiEdfODg

OT, but anyone looking at used Family / Taxi sized EV,s maybe want to check out the asking prices of used Polestar 2,s.

Official Approved Used & the likes of Cinch & other Car Sales / Online sellers. PCP or buying.

Long range ones & much cheapness.

2 former keepers with lots of them. ??

http://polestar.com/uk/preowned-cars

http://cinch.co.uk/used-cars/polestar/2

There are many thousand that have been around Scotland at the airports as hire cars in the past years. Regularly replaced by newer ones.

Edited 16 August, 202516 Aug by Ootohere

You just must have the last word don't you. But there's some major logical inconsistency here due to your blinkered anti-EV adoption stance.

10 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

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

Yes, agree. Reports all said lack of fire suppression system do majorly contribute to fire spreading. It is no different between EV and ICE so I didn't highlight this.

10 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

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

Agree. The delay in getting fire fighting equipment to the source of initial fire is also a contributing factor in those fires started by ICE vehicle, as highlighted by reports.

10 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

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.

So to suggest electric cars pose higher fire risk due to exact same limitation is just showing your bias and cannot accept that ICE vehicle pose the same if not much higher fire risk. You can't accept, despite you've highlighted it in your post, that once things start burning, the major contributing factors have nothing to do with what's powering the vehicle.

The difference I've highlighted can be comes from a simple though experiment, does EV battery behave the same as liquid fuel? No, they wouldn't run along the ground spreading the fire. They are contained within vicinity of the vehicle.

On 16/08/2025 at 09:53, wyx087 said:

You just must have the last word don't you. But there's some major logical inconsistency here due to your blinkered anti-EV adoption stance.

Yes, agree. Reports all said lack of fire suppression system do majorly contribute to fire spreading. It is no different between EV and ICE so I didn't highlight this.

Agree. The delay in getting fire fighting equipment to the source of initial fire is also a contributing factor in those fires started by ICE vehicle, as highlighted by reports.

So to suggest electric cars pose higher fire risk due to exact same limitation is just showing your bias and cannot accept that ICE vehicle pose the same if not much higher fire risk. You can't accept, despite you've highlighted it in your post, that once things start burning, the major contributing factors have nothing to do with what's powering the vehicle.

The difference I've highlighted can be comes from a simple though experiment, does EV battery behave the same as liquid fuel? No, they wouldn't run along the ground spreading the fire. They are contained within vicinity of the vehicle.

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

Edited 17 August, 202517 Aug by Graham Butcher

1 hour ago, Graham Butcher said:

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

Please re-read that paragraph and clarify.

Was there flowing river of fire by liquid fossil fuel?

What exactly is my bias? I was only stating the facts as reported by those car park fire reports?

No one has ever brought up that you tried to insisted on the Luton airport fire starting vehicle having batteries. That was you showing your biases. Sounds like you still haven't let it go.

1 hour ago, Graham Butcher said:

they can normally extinguish petrol fire within minutes, electric no way.

Different problem, different fire fighting solution(*). Don't fixate on old solutions.

Also, statistically BEV are magnitude less likely to catch fire by itself as previously reported. Therefore the overall fire risk (risk is both danger and probability of loss) is lower despite higher danger(*).

1 hour ago, Graham Butcher said:

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.

Yes, access is always the problem. How does that make any difference between BEV and ICE vehicle, as per topic of discussion?

1 hour ago, Graham Butcher said:

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.

Continued burning stuff (as ICE vehicle do) poses far greater risk to the planet, people and all properties on Earth.

BEV gives flexibility in power source. A BEV manufactured 10 years ago have far less per-mile emission than the day it rolled off production line. ICE vehicle's per-mile pollution is fixed the moment it was designed and they typically live for ~20 years from design to scrap.

The market have already decided. Alternative to BEV are not ready soon enough or not good enough. BEV is currently the best solution: range, efficiency, re-use, recycle, cost, product packaging (interior space) and future grid integration just to name a few.

1 hour ago, Graham Butcher said:

so if they don't know how do the so called experts claim that EVs are considerably less likely to catch fire?

Easy, they looked at fire claim stats. Their calculation methodology was clearly stated in the report. Please refer back to when the report was discussed.

I don't see any point dragging this out, the report was previously discussed. Please do post link to the post where that report was discussed or the report itself. If you don't post any links, I'll assume you have not re-read that report and is just making stuff up.

Besides, we are talking about self-ignition. The ratio of power source for Luton airport car park fire doesn't matter for that stat. Logically, if most cars have magnitude less chance to catch fire by itself, there will be so much less fires to begin with.

1 hour ago, Graham Butcher said:

Perhaps these might actually help you to see another side of the argument, without causing an argument.

I can see the other side of argument crystal clear. I have acknowledged difficulty dealing with battery thermal runaway many times (see * in this post, but I admit may be not as clearly stated as you liked). However, my point is that it is such a rare event it greatly reduces overall risk (remember, risk is both damage and probability). I feel you are the one who is fixated on one thing and cannot see the bigger picture, from overall risk, to why ICE vehicles are being banned, and to why BEV are chosen by the market as the solution.

The government recently refused to support UK bioethanol production.

Sky News

Government will not offer bailout to UK's largest bioetha...

Owners Vivergo, a subsidiary of Associated British Foods, had warned that the plant would close without government support, and sources at the company have told Sky News the wind-down process is no...

The value for money they talked about is that using the same land for solar panels would generate over 12x the power, or over 30x the miles if powering BEV.

https://www.cleanwisconsin.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Corn-Ethanol-Vs.-Solar-Analysis-V3-9-compressed.pdf

So, are there any alternatives to battery electric vehicle, available as mass market product right now?

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

The government recently refused to support UK bioethanol production.

Sky News

Government will not offer bailout to UK's largest bioetha...

Owners Vivergo, a subsidiary of Associated British Foods, had warned that the plant would close without government support, and sources at the company have told Sky News the wind-down process is no...

The value for money they talked about is that using the same land for solar panels would generate over 12x the power, or over 30x the miles if powering BEV.

https://www.cleanwisconsin.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Corn-Ethanol-Vs.-Solar-Analysis-V3-9-compressed.pdf

So, are there any alternatives to battery electric vehicle, available as mass market product right now?

Because let nothing derail the narrative.

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.

Xpeng EV extends 24 hour distance record to almost 4000km / 2500 miles.

Helped by Charging at 500 to 400 kWs and cruising at something like 120 mph when running. Be interesting to see a split between running time and charging time.

Trying to find an ICE 24 hour distance record but no luck so far.

Edited 18 August, 202518 Aug by lol-lol

36 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

Because let nothing derail the narrative.

What narrative? Who is derailing it? Who is preventing it?

Can you provide anything from substantial source to back up that statement?

32 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

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.

We were glad to get rid of the Clio hybrid. Over complicated, fuel consumption not great. Relatively heavy, smaller boot due to the intrusion of the hybrid system.

It was pleasant to drive. The oomph often EV sub system made for nice low down power/ torque getting off the line.

Proved to us that hybrid was an unnecessary distraction. Mini Cooper E is so much more fun, bit pricier but much lower running costs, insurance, servicing.

Dodos.

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.

4 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

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 crap is completely at odds with uk, and most the rest of the world's experience.

Now have 3 EVs and no ICE cars and they are easy to live, no trips to gas stations, very cheap to run with energy, insurance and servicing.

Not for everyone. Can understand why my boss is ditching her EQC for a new Tayran, similar to the Superb IV I think. But here in the Midland where journeys are 300 miles or less and expensive public charging is used only 1% of the time today's EV's are great and the handful of times I will need to public charge ie down to South Devon for example will be no hardship ie a 20 minute stop when I will also take a comfort break and get some nosh.

The figures don't lie in that EV take up is growing exponentially and it is gas stations that will become harder to find and more expensive to use.

SMMT figure for July 2025

Edited 20 August, 202520 Aug by lol-lol

2 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

This crap is completely at odds with uk, and most the rest of the world's experience.

Now have 3 EVs and no ICE cars and they are easy to live, no trips to gas stations, very cheap to run with energy, insurance and servicing.

Not for everyone. Can understand why my boss is ditching her EQC for a new Tayran, similar to the Superb IV I think. But here in the Midland where journeys are 300 miles or less and expensive public charging is used only 1% of the time today's EV's are great and the handful of times I will need to public charge ie down to South Devon for example will be no hardship ie a 20 minute stop when I will also take a comfort break and get some nosh.

The figures don't lie in that EV take up is growing exponentially and it is gas stations that will become harder to find and more expensive to use.

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???

2 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

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???

Would not waste my time when the front picture talks about Cobalt which is no longer used in most EVs.

It is used in the mobile phone you use but not most new EVs which now use LFP chemistry not NMC (C is for Cobalt).

Cobalt is down in price by two thirds in the last 3 years as it is just not needed so much.

Your mobile phone, doping in some steels etc but not for EV traction batteries.

EV battery tech is moving so quick that the current LFP chemistry used for most EVs and increasingly for 40 ft container sized unit in battery storage for the Grid, some massive plants coming on line in Essex, will be superceded by Sodium battery chemistry which is costing about $20 per kwh compared to $50 which LFP has been costing.

More worrying thatvl the Cobalt miners are going to get even less for the Cobalt although mobile phones and other small device batteries should also be going LFP and Na as Lithium NMC is really old tech now and like EV manufacturers the device manufacturers really should move on with their battery chemistry tech as well.

8 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

Would not waste my time when the front picture talks about Cobalt which is no longer used in most EVs.

It is used in the mobile phone you use but not most new EVs which now use LFP chemistry not NMC (C is for Cobalt).

Cobalt is down in price by two thirds in the last 3 years as it is just not needed so much.

Your mobile phone, doping in some steels etc but not for EV traction batteries.

EV battery tech is moving so quick that the current LFP chemistry used for most EVs and increasingly for 40 ft container sized unit in battery storage for the Grid, some massive plants coming on line in Essex, will be superceded by Sodium battery chemistry which is costing about $20 per kwh compared to $50 which LFP has been costing.

More worrying thatvl the Cobalt miners are going to get even less for the Cobalt although mobile phones and other small device batteries should also be going LFP and Na as Lithium NMC is really old tech now and like EV manufacturers the device manufacturers really should move on with their battery chemistry tech as well.

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.

Edited 20 August, 202520 Aug by Graham Butcher

13 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

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.

My experience in owning 50 or so ICE cars is that EVs are a revelation.

I have filled them with fuel probably more than a thousand times, paid tens of thousands in Excise Duty and VAT. Watch my kids fill their cars with fuel which pretty much cost them a day's wages each time.

Getting my first EV 4 years ago ie the 250 mile ranged Zoe, AC and DC charging capable, I soon realised the massive savings in running costs and this led to getting another bigger and better EV, the 2024 European Car of the Year Scenic.

On top of all that when I see my children and grandchild I want them not to pay for the mistakes of not transferring over to renewable energy and end up living in a world with ever higher temperatures, more extreme weather and food shortages.

Edited 20 August, 202520 Aug by lol-lol

1 hour ago, Graham Butcher said:

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???

Why does people have to be labelled in such way?

Why are many EV owners/drivers "jumping onto the green bandwagon" for "believe all they have been told"?

Have you considered there's truth in between the extremes?

For example, how much cobalt demand is actually for EV. Despite all the headlines, is half of total demand. With EV rapidly moving to LFP, the predictions for higher demand is unlikely to materialise.

Another example, privacy concern exists for all modern things. That phone in your pocket have more identifying capability than any car.

Have you considered people belive in things that they've verified themselves, rather than parroting social media?

3 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

My experience in owning 50 or so ICE cars is that EVs are a revelation.

I have filled them with fuel probably more than a thousand times, paid tens of thousands in Excise Duty and VAT. Watch my kids fill their cars with fuel which pretty much cost them a day's wages each time.

Getting my first EV 4 years ago ie the 250 mile ranged Zoe, AC and DC charging capable, I soon realised the massive savings in running costs and this led to getting another bigger and better EV, the 2024 European Car of the Year Scenic.

On top of all that when I see my children and grandchild I want them not to pay for the mistakes of not transferring over to renewable energy and end up living in a world with ever higher temperatures, more extreme weather and food shortages.

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?

Edited 20 August, 202520 Aug by Graham Butcher

No Text or email from Charge Places Scotland telling Systems issue, or even a human call handler telling you, 'It is not just you'. It is us.

Sh!t happens, but there is a lot of sh!t to spread around and spoil many's day, or days.

Edited 20 August, 202520 Aug by Ootohere

Interestingly it seems that LFP batteries are actually worse for the environment than NMC batteries, or so it would seem if you can believe the information put out by the Cobalt Institute In-Use EV Battery LCA - Cobalt Institute.

Their report is attached. Now, I'm no expert in these matters but I'm savvy enough to understand not to attach too much weight to any information coming from any party that has a vested interest in a certain outcome and that is a major problem these days as most reports are produced by such people. If they don't have the expertise themselves, they fund universities etc to come up with the reports for them.

It always pays to whenever possible to follow the money trail and they will often take great lengths to distance themselves from it, but often links within links that lead right back to the people with the vested interest in a certain out come.

This is why I don't take anything at face value, eg, yesterday Electric Car-Nage put out a YouTube video of a car transporter in America that had 6 Teslas on it being delivered on the trailer, that caught fire. TV channels videos show that the main fire was concentrated on the car above the semi trucks cab, which was also on fire. So was the fire started in the cab and spread to the Tesla? I don't know.

CI-Battery-LCA-Report-V5-2.pdf

1 hour ago, Graham Butcher said:

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?

To watch the video would mean they get revenue from me watching it.

It is clear from the frontal image that it is out of date and at best badly informed on current tech or more probably trying to suck in saps as clickbait.

Edited 20 August, 202520 Aug by lol-lol