ASX Today, page-44085

This post is intended to address two related issues, including the adoption of hybrids v. pure EVs and the related issue of car fires (which actually is the bulk of this post).

Regarding car fires (and this is for you, especially, @DVEous), the basic numbers are very clear, and there is a boatload of data available to prove it: ICE vehicles catch fire between 17 and 20 times more often than EVs, while hybrids actually catch fire twice as often as EVs, meaning (proportionally to their numbers on the road), for every EV car fire, there are between 17 and 20 ICE car fires and 34 to 40 hybrid fires. I'd posted some Tolstoy-esque posts on the matter at the beginning of the year. Here's some backing data from one of them (and again, there is FAR more data than just this):

Thisarticle is from Kelly Blue Book, which is THE REFERENCE for all things relatedto used vehicles and their valuations here in the US.It indicates that ICEs caught fire at a rate 61 times higher than EVs, though I believe that number is skewed (I mention why down below):

https://www.kbb.com/car-news/study-electric-vehicles-involved-in-fewest-car-fires/

If you paylook at the fine details in this one, you can also see where most ACTUAL ANALYSTSbelieve that the lay person got their uninformed belief (along with mediasensationalism) that EVs are more likely to catch fire than ICEs:HYBRIDS (not EVs, but hybrids) have a rate twice that of ICEs, and are the worst of the lot.Since most people’s first experiences with “electric cars” were hybrids like the Toyota Prius, this established a mindset that is hard to break.

Thisarticle, from Green Car Stocks, which is based right here in SouthernCalifornia, and is one of the USA’s leading firms for aggregating EV-relatedinformation, indicates that the rate is 20 to 1:

https://www.greencarstocks.com/statistics-show-ice-vehicle-fires-20-time-more-likely-than-ev-fires/

Here is thelink to a Swedish Government study that is cited as backup data in several ofmy cited articles (I’ll let you translate it, yourself, since I’ve already DONEYOUR RESEARCH FOR YOU):

https://rib.msb.se/filer/pdf/29438.pdf

This linkis to an article on the matter from GMAuthority (as in General Motors; maybeyou’ve heard of them?), which cites a study from Norway indicating that EVscaught fire at a rate of 3.8 per 100,000 while ICE’s caught fire at a rate of68 per 100,000, which would be a rate of 17.9x)

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2023/11/ev-fires-less-likely-than-ice-vehicle-fires-research-finds/

Thisarticle is from an American auto insurance comparison firm, which utilizes USGovernment data (from the NTSB) as its’ source, which showed rates of 25.1 per100,000 EVs sold compared to 1,529 per 100,000 ICEs sold.That actually yields a rate of 60 to 1, but I believe that the data is skewed upward, because it’s comparing total fires vs. vehicles sold, and there are far more “legacy” ICEs out there to skew the ICE statistics upwards.

https://www.autoinsuranceez.com/gas-vs-electric-car-fires/

By the way,this study is cited by several other agencies and online articles, includingInside EVs, IDTechEx,com, and a slew of others.

Incomparison to all of the above, this is Tesla’s own information, indicatingthat the rate is more like 11 to 1, when comparing Teslas, specifically, tooverall vehicles, which aggregates ICE+EV data, and so likely skews slightlylow because the overall rate is brought down slightly by the fact that EVs andtheir lower rate are included in the overall data:

https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport

The onlyreason I give a range, and it is a bit South of 20 to 1, is because Tesla, theone self-interested party in all the analysis I find, actually cited a rate of11 to 1, rather than 20+, AND it bases its’ analysis on miles driven, versusnumber of vehicles sold or outstanding, which I personally believe is a moreaccurate barometer.

Back to the idea hybrids v. EVs. There are at least three compelling reasons why hybrids are a temporary phase. These include:

1. The clear fact that they are the least safe options, viz-a-viz the issue of car fires.

2. If the point of adopting EV technology is to electrify vehicle operation and remove gasoline/diesel exhaust from the environment, why go with a technology that still utilizes gas/diesel a significant fraction of the time?

3. As battery tech gets better, especially when SSBs finally become a regular technology, range anxiety, which is one of the main reasons people select hybrids over EVs, will become a less compelling reason to purchase hybrids.

There are several other, lesser reasons that I see EVs eventually overtaking hybrids, in most situations. Maintenance of EVs is markedly less expensive. Much like the car fire issue, hybrids have the EV issues AND the ICE issues, and are more likely to catch fire. Likewise, they are more likely to require a visit to the mechanic.

This is just my opinion, but saying that the hybrid is here to stay at the expense of the EV, based on issues from this year, so early in the development of the technology, is a bit like saying that the solid tire or the manual transmission will be with us forever. They were both functional, but it was determined that once the more expensive and technologically more difficult alternatives worked-out their kinks, things changed. Likewise, technologies that hadn't been thought of in the early days of the automobile, like power steering, power brakes and airbags, are all now considered mandatory elements.

Just my thoughts. Have a nice day!