Don’t Park That Here!

125
5371
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A brand-new (2023) Mercedes EQE just went up in smoke – and so did the home of the person who parked it there.

The spontaneously combusting EV burned so hot, so fast, that the flames engulfed the house, resulting in a total loss of both car and house.

The Mercedes EV was not hooked to a charger when this conflagration occurred.

It was just parked.

Several thoughts come to mind.

The first being who’s going to pay for this?

Well, the insurance company, obviously!

No – it will be us. The insurance mafia does not pay. The insurance mafia collects. Certainly, it pays out claims. But who do you suppose pays for that? If you answered – everyone who pays premiums – step to the head of the line!

And it won’t just be the people whose homes burn down because their EV did. Or because it might.

It will be everyone who pays to cover their home – and their car. Including people who do not drive EVs. These costs will become exorbitant. They already are. How much do you think will be paid out to cover the loss of the Japanese car-carrying vessel Freemantle Highway, for instance? Prior to that, there was the Felicity Ace. $400 million in losses form just the latter.

How much will it cost the insurance mafia to “cover” the loss of the home that just got totaled by the EQE – which all by itself constitutes an $80k loss (the base price of a 2023 EQE)? The total losses will likely exceed $1 million by the time it’s all settled.

Each EV will soon cost much more to cover – as the mafia does the math and realizes that what it collects at present might not be sufficient to cover what it ends up having to pay out. The cost of covering the home the EV is parked in front of (heaven forfend inside the garage) will similarly go up, for the obvious reason.

And then everyone’s costs will go up – because otherwise, it would be too obvious that having anything to do with an EV is an expensive proposition.

So everyone can expect to experience an adjustment, soon.

This will serve as yet another vehicle for getting people out of cars – and maybe also their homes. How will they be able to afford either when they cannot afford to cover either?

People are fools if they do not take this seriously. The World Economic Forum – which controls the world via the politicians (and so, the governments) it owns – has openly stated that its end-goal is to eliminate most private vehicle ownership and to herd the bulk of humanity into “15 Minute Cities.” None of this is conjecture.

It is policy.

There is another aspect of this that’s very interesting, in a Catch-22 kind-of-way. Given the risk of an auto da fe it is risky to park an EV in or even near a garage. Prudence dictates parking it as far away from the house as possible.

But then how do you charge the EV?

EVs use specific charge cords; you cannot use an extension cord. The charge box that comes with the EV will detect an impedance difference between the supplied power cord/charge box) and an extension cord, if you try to use that to bridge the gap between an outlet in your garage and wherever the car is parked (and the factory supplied cord won’t reach). You are forced to park close enough for the factory supplied cord to reach. Assuming you want to charge the car at home – the latter being one of the primary touted conveniences of owning an EV. You don’t have to visit “dirty” gas stations anymore.

But you can’t charge at home, at all, if the cord won’t reach the outlet.

So, what do you do? Run the risk of the car – and the house – burning up? And then being homeless as well as car-less? Or accept having to drive (and wait) somewhere else to get a charge?

As word about this gets out, expect hesitancy (as it will be styled) about buying EVs to go up.

There is one other thing to consider as well.

In the past, when a dangerous defect got into production that put people who bought that car at risk of injury or death, it was easy enough to confine the damage by recalling that car. But EVs are not like other cars in that many of them are the same car – as regards the defect. The all-fired-up EQE sedan, for instance, is just a body on a “skate.” Underneath it lies the same battery that lies underneath the EQE SUV. And probably also the EQS sedan.

And the problem isn’t a defect.

It is the design.

All currently-in-production EVs use essentially-the-same lithium-ion batteries as energy storage devices. These batteries contain thousands of individual cells, each of them a potential source of spontaneous combustion. It is not a defect in that it cannot be remedied except by not using lithium-ion batteries to store power.

The problem is, every EV for sale right now does use them. And the fact is they can and have and will spontaneously combust, something that never happens with gas-powered cars. To get the latter to catch fire, you have to work at it. First, the gas has to spill or leak. And then it takes a spark. A parked non-EV that isn’t leaking is as unlikely catch fire as Joe Biden is to propose abolishing the IRS. It is conceivable it might happen – the gas fire – but the odds against it happening are astronomically in favor of it never happening.

EVs catching fire, on the other hand, seem to be happening all the time. Are happening. Two weeks ago, a cargo ship full of them. A few months back, brand-new F150 Lightnings that hadn’t even been shipped to dealers yet. Numerous Teslas. Audis. And a sufficient number of Chevy Bolts to warrant recalling all 60,000 of them.

And just now, a brand-new EQE – which may have been the same one this writer had parked far away from his house a few weeks prior.

I wasn’t able to drive it much – because I wasn’t able to charge it much. But I’ve still got a place to live – unlike the people who parked one too close to their house.

. . .

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

If you like items like the Keeeeeeeeev! t shirt pictured below, you can find that and more at the EPautos store!

 

 

 

 

 

125 COMMENTS

  1. In case it hasn’t been posted, a new study determines that lithium battery power is less efficient outside a narrow range of temperature 15C to 30C.

    “Even when you’re not driving your electric car, heat can have a significant impact on the battery. To decrease the negative effects of heat on EV batteries at rest, it is ideal to park in shaded areas or garages whenever it’s especially hot or sunny.

    In addition to reducing direct heat exposure, keeping an EV plugged in (but not necessarily charging) will allow the BMS to cool the battery, ensuring there is external energy to maintain optimal battery temperature. Here are some ways heat can impact EV batteries at rest:

    1. Self-discharge: All batteries experience self-discharge over time. This is the gradual loss of charge even when the battery is not actively being used. Higher temperatures can accelerate the rate of self-discharge, causing the battery to lose its charge more quickly when parked in hot environments.
    2. Loss of capacity: Capacity loss is when a battery can store less energy over time. It’s what you experience with an older cell phone that is unable to stay charged for as long as when it was new. Prolonged exposure to high temperatures, especially when the battery is at a high state of charge, can lead to capacity loss over time. It will eventually lead to lower available range when the vehicle is in use.
    3. Lifespan: As discussed above, high temperatures accelerate the rate of chemical reactions within the battery, leading to faster degradation of active materials and reducing the number of charge and discharge cycles that a battery can undergo.
    4. Cell balancing: In multi-cell battery packs, like the ones in EVs, individual cells might have slightly different capacities or voltages. During rest periods, when the battery is not being actively balanced through charging or discharging, heat can exacerbate imbalances between cells, potentially affecting the overall performance and lifespan of the battery pack. Unbalanced cells can also affect how well the battery management system can evaluate range and state of charge.
    Unbalanced cells can be exacerbated in the heat
    5.Thermal runaway: Although extremely rare, if the battery pack is exposed to extremely high temperatures or malfunctions, such as in a crash, it can lead to thermal runaway. This is a rapid, uncontrollable increase in temperature, ultimately resulting in fire or explosion.”

    The scientific explanation (for laymen) is here:
    Deep Dive: Lithium Ion Batteries and Heat
    https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/deep-dive-lithium-ion-batteries-and-heat

  2. Sincerity Ace cargo ship with EV’s on board was abandoned in the Pacific, story was dated January 1st, 2019.

    The Felicity Ace cargo ship with EV’s on board sank in the Atlantic 400 kliks from Portugal.

    The Fremantle Highway cargo ship has/had 500 EV’s on board, the fires are out, the ship is in Eemshaven, a Dutch harbor, Deutsch Welle has the story.

    It’s only three cargo ships and about 12,000 new cars, some Rolls Royce’s even.

    Everybody should be good with it, accidents happen and fires break out on cargo ships carrying EV’s, can happen at any time. If it happens once a year, it’s not that bad.

    The new normal can’t be denied. Some are maybe in denial, but that is their problem.

  3. The car carrying boat also has to be scrapped, if it doesn’t just sink on it’s own. With all those EV’s on fire, the inside of the boat is ruined – the heat of the fire for sure weakens the steel, probably buckling it in places.

    It is cheaper for the owner and the insurance company that if a boat load of EVs catches fire, that it is scuttled, and I am very suspicious that this already happened. We are talking tens of millions to clean up and scrap a cargo boat. Can you imagine the environmental regulations to get permitted to scrap while the boat is in port?

    The Felicity Ace went to the bottom, Fremantle Highway was towed to a port and was tilted to the side last I read – and inside is an extremely toxic environment – all those nasty biproducts of combustion, the plastics, and the batteries off gassed and penetrated every pour of the boat. Inside has to be a ghastly scene – and you can NOT go inside to photograph it without some kind of astronaut suit.

    Electric cars are an extreme danger to human beings, but not just them, so are electric bicycles, or ebikes as they are called:

    “NEW YORK (AP) — The explosion early on a June morning ignited a blaze that engulfed a New York City shop filled with motorized bicycles and their volatile lithium-ion batteries. Billowing smoke quickly killed four people asleep in apartments above the burning store.”

    BTW I literally will NOT park within a hundred yards of any damn Tesla firecracker. And you couldn’t even pay me to get in one. People buying those damn things are stupid fools.

  4. A gravity-fed gasoline ten gallon visible glass tank is for sale for a starting bid of 20 dollars.

    Needs some restoration, but if it is only 20 dollars to win the bid, it might be worth it.

    To fuel an EV, you need nuclear power plants, hydro-electric dams, coal-fired power plants generating electricity.

    There are 160,000 plus oil wells in Texas, daily production is 3.7 million barrels per day.

    The 3.7 million barrels is 3.7 percent of the daily production/consumption worldwide. A significant amount.

    There are more than 87,000 gas wells in Texas.

    The only reason there is oil and gas is because of supply and demand. In economics, the amount of oil and gas for sale in the commodity markets is known as economic supply and demand.

    Sometimes, Mexicans tap into oil pipelines at a number of 15,000 times in 2018. How to steal some oil down Mexico way, then truck it to the market, it’s almost a book by now.

    The stolen oil is fresh supply that is free, just surreptitiously sell it for some money. A black market, oil is one choice if you want to be a thief.

    Don’t let the Texas Rail Road Commission catch wind of it, you’ll be tracked down, found, and you’ll be in the hoosegow.

    Don’t Mess with Texas! Now you know the translation.

    Been 122 years since Spindletop, so it seems there is plenty of oil.

  5. Gonna get me one of these round, red crossbar “No EeeVees” graphic signs to post at muh driveway entrance:

    https://ibb.co/t21YzDm

    Purpose: to exclude flammable gelded vehicles, and the gelded Clovers who drive them.

    Don’t it look like a little rat, with that hairless two-pronged tail?

    Could be a T-shirt too … 😉

  6. I have one question after watching the video of that EV that burned up. What the heck brand of tires were on the front of that car? Most of the tire is still there. That’s some impressive rubber right there. You figure the tires would be the first thing to burn and melt to goo.

  7. On the bright side, the despised insurance mafia will likely pay attention and pursue subrogation against the culprit(s.) They’re not going to accept paying for houses burned to the ground for very long. Cause & origin engineers will get busy.

    • Capo Gecko of the Mafia is busy planning for the all EV future across all of his subsidiaries, not just insurance. Pilot/Flying-J is now on the main balance sheet and will be wholly owned by this time next year, with a deal in the works with the Feds for charging stations funded by the “inflation reduction” bill.

      Beyond that, The Gecko is still making another serious play to gain control of the Texas energy market, and Lubrizol frequently comes up as a potential coolant for electronics in various systems including EVs.

  8. Wondering – is the ship still on fire ?! Maybe it will become a floating version of the great tire fire in Kuwait or somewhere….

    • It sank already, still burning like an underwater incendiary flare. I think the article I read said somewhere around 500 EVs, plus all the other non-EVs that caught fire as well. They are a domestic, commercial, and environmental disaster and need to be banned as such.

  9. Someone else said it here, its all about compliance. The insurance mafioso will do whatever they are told by Pete the Electric Buttplug. In most instances Big Insurance doesn’t even need to be told. Look at their advertising. Almost universally anti-White, anti-tradition, pro fag, and pro single mom. All Insurers need do is follow the narrative. The costs to everyone are of no concern to these narrative engineers. They will subsidize those who comply and penalize those who complain.

    Insurance rate increases are a direct result of embracing crony capitalism. Poor policy decisions (limiting supply, forced compliance, and demand destruction) these last three and a half years add to the strain. Add in the wonton destruction of the food supply and you start to see the holdomor this is becoming. Plus all the brainwashing of the last 30 years, from the ‘We’re all in it together’ crowd. I’m tired of being my brothers keeper. Each man should be rated on his actions and outcomes toward society, if he’s a net drain he should pay a higher price. If not, his premiums should reflect that.

    When gun safety becomes “Universal” as Moms demand, then those insurance costs will fall directly to gun owning households. Shitlibs who demand we all share the cost of insuring their green fever dreams will have no desire to share in the increasing cost of ‘gun safety’. Even though many more people own guns than own clown cars. And they wont be forced to either, because guns don’t fit with the new improved world (((they))) are busy building like the termites they are.

  10. Everyone is talking about houses catching fire cause of EV’s. What about apartment complexes? No one us talking about the danger that they pose for these buildings.

    Most of the new apartment complexes being built here in Houston are 900+ units with the first 1 or 2 levels directly underneath the building being covered parking. Why aren’t EV’s banned from apartment complexes considering the fire danger they pose?

    • Purely by accident I came across a headline that said 4 people were kilt in NYC about a month ago when an E-bike caught fire in the E-bike store below their apartments….. Bet that never made it to the MSM “news”. It’s becoming a big problem in these shithole cities- usually from residents personal E-bikes catching fire in their apartments or hallways/storage areas- and that’s just with BIKES, which have batteries that are a fraction of the size of the ones in ‘lectric cars!

      • And here I thought the weight of the many EV’s parked in the aged parking garages collapsing them was bad. Cannot remember where I read that story, but thought it was interesting. Would have been pissed if my ICE vehicle was the one crushed because of it.

  11. What I find hilarious is that the tools who squander their money on these toy cars think that they are so sophisticated; that they are embracing stunning, other-worldly technology of the highest caliber; living on the bleeding edge, and all that….and meanwhile these hobbled human-fryers are powered literally by hundreds of flashlight batteries soldered together! -Sounds like something a 10 year-old might come up with- “Where’re we gonna get a really big battery? Meh, just tape a bunch of double-A’s together…”.

  12. No worry. Soon you will own nothing and be happy the appointed gods of this world say. They will own everything and be ecstatically happy.

  13. I think the only reason EV’s have a chance is because gas stinks. If gas had no smell there wouldn’t be a problem. Women and soy boys hate the smell and the hassle of pumping it and look forward to the day when they can plug it in like a cell phone.

    Also the ending of full service gas stations. If someone else was standing in the cold or heat pumping that smelly gas into the tank then few would want to switch. Women and soft men are the ones in position to make these decisions.

    • Hi Krusty,

      The “hassle” of pumping gas? Really? It’s one of the easiest, quickest things to do I can think of. How about the hassle of having to plug the EeeeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeeeee in every night? Then unplug the stupid thing the next morning. Then worry about the . . . hassle of running out range and the hassle of having to stop and wait for a charge?

      • I telling you dude. Invent odorless gasoline and you will rescue the ICE.
        (I do kinda like the smell of the corn-gas).

    • Well said. What happened to the service station is tragic in and of itself. Following the energy crisis of 1973-74, self serve began popping up across the country at a dizzying pace, so now the soft underbelly had to deal with gasoline.

      (I miss the days of leaded gasoline. I don’t particularly believe any of the stories about lead and whatnot. I think it’s bullshit pushed by those who hated the industrial revolution and want only a clean, quiet plug in future as well.)

      After many stations closed following the crisis, the convenience store dotted the landscape. Some of them were former gas stations, some were new construction that took place in the 1980’s. Then, the Environmental President got in and fussed with water regulations. Ostensibly to clean up the underground water. Bullshit. The underground water has been contaminated with herbicides and pesticides since, but gasoline was all of a sudden some type of issue. As a result, it drove mom and pop out of business and now we got stuck with those idiot convenience stores owned by Indians and Pakistanis fresh with government help and loans unavailable to normal native-born Americans.

      So, now we have poetic justice underway. Buccees. The guys who sued an alligator. These cretins are using every political judicial and economic advantage to stomp out competition and also extract all money that would have gone into small towns. They are, however, wreaking damage on the shitty convenience store model and replacing it with 115 gasoline pumps at every outlet.

      I will be convinced that EVs are here to stay when I see Buckeys installing electric chargers in their filling stations.

      • I have seen Buccees with electric car charging points on the east coast, along I95.
        But they still have 10x to 20x as many gas/diesel pumps!!!

      • I don’t understand why they can’t come up with new names. Why would GM want to destroy the Corvette brand? Corvettes are iconic muscle cars…not SUVs. For, God’s sake, Mary Barra, change the damn name. Have you learned nothing from Ford and watching the dismal rollout of the Ford Mustang Mach E?

        I think Ford and GM have both hired Kamala’s speech writer. It is the only thing that makes sense. The six year old demands the new SUV be deemed a Corvette.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3_nN0ERPL4

  14. I’m reminded of Zorg’s John Maynard Keynes inspired speech in The Fifth Element:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXwqUMkXFiI&t=193s

    Sometimes destruction is a win-win! Just look at all the new opportunities to employ people. One EV fire in a cargo ship can keep thousands of men working. From car factories to shipyards and of course the fine men and women of the Coast Guard saving lives of those poor sailers stranded on the burning leviathan. Even the news models got to earn their way for another day.

    “Life… comes from destruction, disorder and chaos.”

    I asked Chat GPT about Keynes’ make-work concepts…

    In his 1936 book “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money,” he wrote:

    “If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is.” (aside: so many words to say nothing! No wonder people don’t read the source material, it’s all this incomprehensible word salad)

    Of course we all know the great failing of Keynes is that he didn’t judge work quality, weighing all economic activity the same. This is a constant problem with economic theory, attempting to put a value on work performed is nearly impossible at the macro scale. Putting tires on an F-150 vs a Tesla Model 3 is valued differently in the marketplace because an F-150 and Model 3 have different values themselves. So to him, paying someone to dig holes and someone else to fill them back in is productive.

  15. A few weeks ago, I went on a flight for a business trip and gate checked my rolling bag. The gate personnel asked me if I had any lithium batteries in my rolling bag, which I didn’t.

    If the FAA and NTSB have concerns about one or two lithium batteries on planes, why not a peep about all these lithium batteries in cars?

    Oh, wait a minute…that goes against “The Narrative” of how necessary EVs are to Save The Earth…

    Speaking of which…One reason why there’s no hue and cry about EV fires is that the ultimate business model is one in which we don’t own them, but subscribe to and summon them as needed, aka Mobility As A Service. But…But…Can you imagine what would happen if such a fire broke out in an “Uber garage?” Well, no mobility for you then!

    • The FAA is in a quandary. There hasn’t been a loss of life accident on a commerical airliner since 2001. It is far and away the safest form of long distance travel ever devised, and overall, only travel by elevator is safer. You’re far more likely to be killed at the airport terminal than in the sky. I’ll conceed that most of that safety milestone is thanks to regulation, but not due to the FAA. When the FAA is doing it’s job well, it follows industry guidelines and generally accepted practices. When not, it’s a busybody agency that forces arbitrary rules that are there to fix problems that have already been solved.

      The LiPO cargo hold ban has more to do with the early failures of the 787’s APU battery than anything.

      https://simpleflying.com/boeing-787-battery-problems-overcome/

      After thorough testing, the FAA was satisfied, and the grounding was lifted in April 2013. The planes were back in the air, but it wasn’t without cost. Boeing took a financial hit, and their reputation suffered a bit too. The incident also led to a closer look at how lithium-ion batteries are used in aviation.

      They say that airline regulations are written in blood. But the rules around lithium batteries are completely arbitrary. They believe they need to make sweeping general rules because of the “general public” not understanding, but reality is the regulators probably don’t know the difference themselves. They don’t account for LiFePO vs LiPO for example. There are set amounts of lithium permitted, but they don’t apply if the battery isn’t removable, for example.

      I’ve flown with drones and their batteries, which push the limits of what’s permitted, and on one such flight had my iPhone swell up due to a bad battery (I think it happened in the car on the way to the airport, or maybe in the hotel). Luckily I was able to stop by the Apple store on the way through Denver to get it replaced. But anyway, I wasn’t permitted to check the drone batteries but the iPhone would have been fine down in the hold according to the regulator. Needless to say I’m much more tuned into the condition of drone batteries than my phone’s, for which I have very limited insight anyway.

  16. At least gas gives you a warning when there’s a leak and fire risk. It reeks! I had a fuel rail o ring that started seeping on my FIEROs V6 about 10 years back. Raw gas under the plenum on a hot engine. One hell of a stink but NO fire.

      • Eric – not QUITE true. A gasoline or diesel fire can reignite, but that’s usually a consequence of improper technique in firefighting. The reason for “foaming” is to deny oxygen to the fuel, which often is already heated ABOVE the flash point. A dry chemical or Halon will “snuff” a fire, but unless the heat is removed, it can “flash” again once it gets air again. Furthermore, many fires from gasoline, diesel, CNG, or LNG tanks are “BLEVE” (Boiling Liquid, Expanding Vapor Explosion). A typical approach is to cool the tank with water, preferably by mist rather than stream, and “snuff” the fire itself with CO2.

  17. ‘As word about this gets out, expect hesitancy about buying EVs to go up.’ — eric

    EeeVee hesitancy, comrades: it’s of a piece with ‘vaccine hesitancy’ — that is, an antisocial tendency that can be stamped out by managing social media feeds.

    How lovely it would be if an organization actually concerned with saaaaaaaafety — fire marshals, building code officials, even the Consumer Product Safety Commission — took a stand against parking combustible EeeVees inside structures.

    But that’s unlikely. As Il Duce pertinently observed,

    “Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”

    Substitute ‘Grid’ for ‘State’: it’s the EeeVee Magna Carta, coming to you by twenty thirty-twoooooo. 🙂

    • Hi Jim,

      As with the term “vaccine hesitancy” to shame people who refused to be guinea pigs for Big Pharma at the height of COVID jab mania, I expect that the media will be using the term “EV hesitancy” as a way of shaming people who refuse to give up their gas vehicles for an electric vehicle, particularly if EV manufacturers start giving media outlets advertising money like Pharma does. It seems that every other commercial or so during commercial breaks these days are for some drug accompanied by a catchy tune, like TRELOGY, OZEMPIC, or JARDIANCE.

    • What EV hesitancy?

      Over 2.3 million electric cars were sold in the first quarter of 2023, about 25% more than in the same period last year.

      We currently expect to see 14 million in sales by the end of 2023, representing a 35% year-on-year increase with new purchases accelerating in the second half of this year.

      • Yes. I agree. You’re right. The US driving public is embracing this shit in increasing numbers. There are simply too many pinheads in this country that will go to the latest thing and subject us to their bullshit narratives. Electric cars are foul and should be exterminated from the highways. Their very presence in the middle and slow lanes of a Texas freeway is a menace as are most other vehicles (ICE as well) made since around 2012.

        Fuck EVs and Fuck the public. Quit trying to take away my right to drive what the fuck I want through economic manipulation and coercion

      • In spite of the entire Western economy about to go down the sewer? In spite of Ford about to go bankrupt because they can’t sell them? Or are we just looking at Tesla sales in China? There’s plenty of EV hesitancy, like the 80% or so current owners saying they will never own another. Like the fact that few can afford one. Personally, I would be embarrassed to admit I spent 50k on the most inconvenient means of road transportation available. And that’s the LOW end of the price scale.

        • “There’s plenty of EV hesitancy, like the 80% or so current owners saying they will never own another. ”

          That is a myth VERY FAR from the truth.

          “Researchers found that EV buyers tended to stay electric — 63.3% bought another EV. About a quarter — 26.3% — went back to a gas-powered car.: EV. About a quarter — 26.3% — went back to a gas-powered car. Just 10.4% switched to a PHEV.”
          SOURCE:
          https://www.kbb.com/car-news/most-study-electric-car-buyers-dont-go-back/

          • Richard,

            Has it ever occurred to you that these “studies” and “polls” you like to cite might be skewed? You know – like the “studies” that said “safe and effective”?

            • Do you have better data, or do you just automatically dismiss any data because of your confirmation bias?

              There were no studies that proved deaths declined from Covid shots because deaths had no significant declines as shots were implemented.

              Without that proof, everything else is speculation, or a computer model, not a “study” based on data.

              The manufacturer tests only lasted two months and the test subjects were healthy and rarely over age 55. No children or prenant women. The subjects did not include the people most likely to have serious adverse side effects: The elderly with comorbidities, children and pregnant women.

              There were many people making those false data- free claims about the shots, including Trump.

              But all data collected in 2021 clearly showed the shots had the worst adverse side effects in the history of shots given to the general public.

              And there was no significant decline of excess deaths and all-cause mortality in 2021 versus 2020. In fact, deaths WITH Covid increased in 2021, although it is impossible to differentiate between natural Covid infections versus damage from spike proteins created by the shots.

              Due Diligence: I am unvaxxed and have recommended anti-vax articles almost every day on my blog for over two years.

              Masks are worthless and stupid, but now that they are voluntary, there are more important topics.

          • I would ask who did the survey, were they totally dis-interested, what questions were asked and how conclusions were reached. And were the drawbacks of EV’s fully disclosed?

              • The actual citations in that article are pretty thin. I will concede that altogether too many people have bought into that nonsense. On my recent trip to Oklahoma City from Houston, there were not an insignificant number of Teslas on the highway. One of them was moving along about 85 to 90. I wonder how fast his battery goes down at that speed.

                I still think that they are lame transportation modules. Unless they will make them with 20 year batteries with a 1000 mile range at 80 mph cruise speed, I’m not interested.

      • How did we get from this:
        “As word about this gets out, expect hesitancy (as it will be styled) about buying EVs to go up.”

        to this:
        “What EV hesitancy?
        Over 2.3 million electric cars were sold in the first quarter of 2023, about 25% more than in the same period last year.”

        I’ll tell you how, one party is being disingenuous and obtuse. You can decide which one.

      • Hi Richard,

        Are your figures global figures or US figures?

        In the US the 1st quarter BEV sales were 257K and the second quarter was a little less than 300K. We need to be careful that the data that we are recounting doesn’t include hybrid technology which the government (and many larger corporations) are including in their figures. It is wholly inadequate and promotes a stronger narrative in support of BEV’s when that is clearly not the case.

        Did BEV sales increase? Yes, but only because production of hybrids are on backorder and are unable to keep up with demand (e.g. Toyota and Honda). Once Japan finds their footing expect the hybrid market to surpass the BEV market.

        Of course, 82% of autos sold in second quarter of 2023 were ICs. BEVs and hybrids took roughly 8.8% and 8.2% of the remaining market.

        • Those are global data.

          Americans bought more than 250,000 electric vehicles (EVs) in the first three months of 2023. They’re on pace to purchase more than a million EVs annually for the first time.

          Don’t ask me why.

          • Ahh…and of the 250K US sales, how many were Government or Corporate FLEET accounts? I’d be shocked if even half of that figure were private-parry sales.

            In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Chrysler was not only provided with that bailout which gave Federal guarantee for their badly-needed loan, but the company got preferential treatment in GSA Fleet sales and in Federal matching funds for State and local law enforcement. Practically every “squid car” from those times was a Plymouth Gran Fury, a Dodge Diplomat or St Regis, and even a few Aspens and Aires! I wonder what sales would actually be to private owners if it weren’t for the tax credits.

    • Something already exists that “has the possibility of blowing the EV B.S. out of the water”: internal combustion engines running on reliable, abundant, ubiquitous petroleum fuels.
      Why replace EV BS with hydrogen BS? There is no climate emergency and thus no need to “transition.”

      • 100 percent Roland. To get Hydrogen “energy” you have to go through a lot of processing that involves the use of petroleum products

    • Never had much interest in hydrogen … but this video features solid people (one spent 25 years with GM; now working with Bosch) who know what they are doing. They exhibit at the SEMA (Specialty Equipment Market Association) show every year.

      Despite skeptics sniping from the peanut gallery, they built a 500-hp hydrogen-powered truck in ten weeks … which speaks for itself concerning their expertise. Their custom vintage pickup — manual shift, no airbags — already complies with SULEV (Super Low Emissions Vehicles) standards mandated by CARB.

      Those standards could actually shut down traditional forms of auto racing, they say. Since combustion of hydrogen produces no carbon, the anti-carbon crusade can’t touch it.

      Whether one is a hydrogen advocate or not, this 33-minute video is highly educational. Thank you for posting it.

      • I have never been able to understand the hydrogen thing. You take a huge amount of engergy to break up a water molecule and then burn hydrogen fuel. I don’t know. I think it’s wasteful and stupid. I’ll check it out though. I prefer my oil powered IC engines with built in energy density.

        Screw “alternative fuels” until oil becomes naturally uneconomical to extract.

        • “You take a huge amount of engergy to break up a water molecule and then burn hydrogen fuel.”

          And soon there is no water. A dried out planet corpse. The ultimate achievement in today’s kook environmentalism.

          No humans, No animals, No birds, No plants, No trees, No insects. Just another floating rock.

          The planet is Saved!

          • Stop daydreaming please!

            If hydrogen fuel became a widespread energy source, would that lead to depletion of water as a resource? Not in the slightest. That’s because, when hydrogen is either burned or reacted in a fuel cell, the result is water. When we use hydrogen as “fuel”, we are really using it as an energy storage system, kind of like a liquid battery. We spend energy to pull the hydrogen atoms off of water molecules, leaving oxygen which gets vented to the atmosphere. Then, we keep the hydrogen around in tanks for a while, then at some point we let it react with oxygen from the atmosphere. This allows us to get back MOST of the energy we put in when we pulled the hydrogen out of water in the first place, and restores the water molecules that were originally destroyed.

            Unfortunately, hydrogen has less energy than the natural gas used to produce it, so you might as well just burn the natural gas. The gas pipelines can’t handle much hydrogen anyway.

            Hydrogen is the stupid fuel.

  18. The government is treating EVs roughly the same way they’ve treated and continue to treat the COVID “vaccines”…….instead of calling for pulling them off the market, they continue to PUSH them or, in the case of the experimental mRNA jabs, even FORCE them. As everyone here may remember, 2 years ago, the Biden Thing tried to make it MANDATORY via OSHA diktats for people to take the COVID shots to work at an employer with at least 100 employees. Had they not been stopped by the Supreme Court, they’d have likely expanded those diktats to ALL employers or even making it MANDATORY to get vaxxed to even get around in the “Land of the free”.

    And with this MASSIVE push for EVs, plus the WEF’s call for a massive reduction in private car ownership, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Biden regime tries to force Americans out of any gas vehicles they already own.

    • In the real world, Biden, Heels-Up-Harris, all Congress members, their staff, and the U.S. Supreme Court members should be the first to have their gas guzzling vehicles seized from them. They should be the ones forced into these EV’s, since they think it is so great for the earth. But, we all know that is never going to happen. Rules for me, but not for thee is how it goes.

      • All government parasites everywhere should have been forced to get those ‘life saving’ jabs first.

        Now that,,, would have been a public service!

  19. Spontaneous fires of parked EVs are very rare. But they are great for EV scaremongering. No data are provided here to back up the claim. But this focus on a tiny percentage of car fires does obscure the fact that EVs have been far safer than ICEs, and especially Hybrids, when judged by the number of fires per 100,000 miles of driving. But why let data ruin a scary story?

    Statistics compiled by AutoInsuranceEZ found that for every 100,000 EVs, there are about 25 fires each year. That compares to 1,530 car fires in the same number of gas-powered vehicles annually. Gas-powered cars typically catch fire due to fuel leaks or crashes.

    • The scary story is that WHEN there’s an EV fire, they are close to impossible to be put out, they burn VERY hot and VERY toxic. Unlike an ICEV fire, which can be quickly put out with sufficient WATER, cooling it down below its flash point. A thing EVs do not have, since its very design IS the flash point.

    • In Richard’s mind an ICE “fire” is equivalent to and EV “fire.” The “data” as you like to reference doesn’t exactly explain this does it?

      EV fires appear to me as more of a China Syndrome as compared to a gasoline fire. I’m no expert in combustion, but my understanding is that electrical fire are most serious, especially when you cannot cut off the electrical current because they continue to reignite.

    • You’re right. They are somewhat safer than ICE cars in total. But how many of those ICE fires were due to poor maintenance, fender-bender accidents that created more damage than appeared or intentional vandalism? And how many EV fires started due to manufacturing defects, overworking the battery pack or “just because?” As EVs become more mainstream we will see the same sorts of vehicle abuse lead to a leveling out of stastical averages. Time will tell which one is safer. But for now the new and novel make the nightly news.

      This car might be an example of “just because,”, but hard to say until we know the facts. Of course there won’t be a follow up story with an RCA, that’s not newsworthy. Being that it’s a loaner I’m guessing someone along the way probably abused it -heck maybe hubby tried out ludicrous speed mode by drag racing all afternoon while heading home from the dealer- but that’s just me making proactive excuses for the technology.

      • I have almost nothing good to say about EVs and never want to be forced to buy one, assuming I could even afford one.

        But the number of fires per 100,000 EVs, so far, has been an EV strong point. I base my conclusions on data.

        In my opinion, having thousands of battery cells in each EV make no sense from an engineering point of view, and I wonder about the long term durability of such complexity. There could be a serious deterioration of EV battery safety as the batteries age.

        On the other hand, people don’t drive that many miles in their EVs now, so we don’t have field data on long term EV reliability. Reliability does decline with age and use.

        But how many long trips would any EV owner take? Based on articles I’ve read in the past few years, the first long EV trip is usually the last long EV trip.

        With all their obvious faults, and higher prices, it seems to me that EVs are being forced on us to reduce driving. Driving anywhere, at any time, with many gasoline stations available, and fast refueling, is a big part of personal freedom.

    • “Gas-powered cars typically catch fire due to fuel leaks or crashes.”- Richard Greene
      Which is exactly the point. EV’s burst into flames randomly, just sitting there, and anything nearby is collateral damage; too bad if it happens to be your house or an entire cargo ship.

    • Richard,

      The point is that spontaneous EV fires are a very real thing, due to the nature of lithium-ion batteries. They are “rare,” you say? Cueing Ren & Stimpy voice again. You idiot! EVs are extremely new entrants. Most of the models (other than Teslas) haven’t been on the market – and in use – for more than a year or two. Most of the rest aren’t in use as daily drivers. Let’s see how it goes over the next five years and then we can do another apples-apples comparison.

      Meanwhile, we have not one but two cargo ships carrying EVs that went up in smoke during the past 24 months. Please cite an example of a cargo ship full of non-EV cars going up in smoke over the past ten years.

      • Cargo ships are irrelevant for EVs assembled in the US, Mexico and Cubanada.

        In its 2022 safety and shipping review, analysis by major insurer Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty showed there had been over 70 reported fires on board container ships alone in the past five years, with growing risks faced by car carriers transporting electric vehicles using batteries.

        The insurance companies will not tolerate EV fires on cargo ships for long, but that won’t stop EV manufacturing in North America for the US market. It might reduce the envisioned import of cheap Chinese EVs that US auto engineers fear.

        The rare spontaneous EV fires are yet another in a LONG list of EV disadvantages.

        My personal list of EV advantages used to include only fast acceleration, though not often needed, and now I can add fewer total fires (so far).

        I don’t like the propaganda use of rare, spontaneous EV fires (so far) any more than the propaganda use of a hot summer day to promote climate scaremongering.

        If a person read an honest list of the most important EVs faults, in order of significance, I believe they would have decided against buying an EV before they got to “Rare spontaneous fires”.

        EVs are mainly virtue signaling cars for anti-Big Oil nutters trying to ruin our lives.

        • “The insurance companies will not tolerate EV fires on cargo ships for long, but that won’t stop EV manufacturing in North America for the US market.”

          Actually, I disagree. I believe it will. My husband made a comment very similar to yours the other night in regards to EVs and cargo fires. His view was that insurance would not cover it and the captains/shipping companies would not tolerate the liability and additional danger that transporting lithium batteries would cause and would not stop doing so. I agree with him. Tesla vehicles may be assembled in Texas, but their batteries are still made in China. The reward may not be worth the risk.

          The automobile manufacturers will soon backtrack off their adoration of the EV and realize hybrid technology is the only thing most Americans will even consider.

        • Richard writes – in his usual quibbling manner:

          “Cargo ships are irrelevant for EVs assembled in the US, Mexico and Cubanada.”

          What has that to do with the point I made about the EVs catching fire?

          He then writes:

          “I don’t like the propaganda use of rare, spontaneous EV fires . . . ” After I pointed out the fact that TWO cargo ships full of EVs have burned to cinders in 24 months. No reply as regards my query as to how many cargo ships carrying normal cars have spontaneously caught fire over the past ten years…

          • But, but, but Eric. Look at all the ships out there in the world. You’ve only pointed out two ships. Thus, the “data” indicates that EV’s destroying cargo vessels is rare.

            Richard is a great example of confirmation bias. He has a particular viewpoint and narrowly see the “data” through the lens of that viewpoint. Humans have a tendency to do that, but Richard does it with such a cocksure attitude, fully convinced of his own brilliance.

              • My blogs have always been free with no ads. My former newsletter ECONOMIC LOGIC was $1 a copy for 43 years. Never raised my price. I retired at age 51 because the wife had first retired at 51, and had been happier than ever for four years. I gave up a six-figure income for a low-income lifestyle … and lower blood pressure too.

                Everybody needs money to live. Could the money you get, from whatever source, influence your written opinions, just like everyone else is vulnerable ?

                • Dick writes:

                  “Could the money you get, from whatever source, influence your written opinions, just like everyone else is vulnerable ?”

                  Nope. Because all the money I earn is freely donated by individuals who consider what I do to be worth supporting.

                  • But then you have to please the people who donate money to you. If they hate motorcycle helmets, for example, they may not appreciate you saying how many lives and head injuries helmets prevent.

                    The only people without bias are the best journalists, who report good news and bad news about any subject they tackle. And Mr. Spock.

                    You deserve donations for your auto reviews. But the politics articles could have less bias and more data. That’s just my opinion.

                    I wrote three page financial articles for 43 years. Collecting and analyzing financial and economic data is a lot of work compared with a simple opinion piece. End of my tedious lecture: … Everyone can wake up now … and start drinking.

                    • Richard writes:

                      “But then you have to please the people who donate money to you. If they hate motorcycle helmets, for example, they may not appreciate you saying how many lives and head injuries helmets prevent.”

                      I write what strikes me as worth writing about. I offer my point of view. That’s it. I do not write with the object of currying favor with the intention of making money thereby.

                      You write:

                      “The only people without bias are the best journalists, who report good news and bad news about any subject they tackle. ”

                      Everyone has bias – and the “best journalists” don’t try to deny it. Also, you clearly have no understanding of reporting vs. analyzing.

                      You then very pathetically attempt to purvey your mighty curriculum vitae as a counterpoint to my “simple opinion piece.” I leave it to those reading here to form their own judgments.

          • EVs do not have to be imported over the seas.

            77% of automobiles sold in the US are assembled in North America

            100% of Teslas sold in the US are assembled in North America

            Tesla factories are in California, Nevada and Texas. “Basically 100% of the vehicles they sell here are made here,” Cars.com Detroit bureau chief Aaron Bragman tells Axios.
            Jun 21, 2023

            Transporting a battery pack by ship is not the same as transporting an EV by ship.

            There is no proof that any EV STARTED the fires on those two cargo ships –that claim is speculation used to demonize ocean shipping of EVs.

            There are no incidences of EV battery packs that are NOT installed in EVs catching fire on ships.

            This is EV scaremongering.

        • My guess is, if insurance comp won’t allow ev’s on ships, the ccp will just ship ev’s on their own ships. one goes down, ohhh well.

        • Famed insurance carrier for ocean craft, Lloyd’s of London, might have something to say about that.

          Not sure about the regulation of Maritime insurance policies, there are a lot of International conventions used, but domestically, most potential for catastrophic losses are addressed via the re-insurance market. Yep, an insurance company insures its portfolio. I’ve little doubt that Swiss Re and Cologne Re are taking a bath over that auto carrier fire. However, reinsurance is the reason that my son’s medical care that saved his life last year could have over EIGHT MILLUON spent on it. Five months at the Stanford Medical Center might do that. IDK how much Dignity Health had to “eat” of that, and how much Stanford donated out of its endowment (written off as research), but reinsurance makes certain they didn’t have to foot the entire bill.

    • Richard writes:

      “Gas-powered cars typically catch fire due to fuel leaks or crashes.”

      Yes, exactly. It requires some external factor to trigger the fire. EVs just catch fire.

      And they ask me why I drink…

      • But EVs rarely catch fire compared with ICE vehicles and especially hybrids.

        You seem to “forget” fair and balanced reporting when demonizing EVs, helmets, etc.

        And now are you admitting to drinking and writing?

        hah ha

        • Richard,

          Your Talmudic parsing grows wearying, again.

          I have repeatedly pointed out the fact that two cargo ships transporting EVs have gone up in flames in less than two years. This is unprecedented. I have repeatedly asked you to cite the number of cargo ships with standard cars that have gone up in flames in the past ten because a car spontaneously caught fire and it got out of control. The answer is – none.

          You serially dodge the point – and answering the question.

          You write:

          “But EVs rarely catch fire compared with ICE vehicles and especially hybrids.”

          If EVs fires are “rare,” how come literally every make/model EV has caught fire? Spontaneously. Mark that. How many non-EVs of any type can you say have spontaneously caught fire during the past decade? I have pointed out the fact that EVs have a built-in fire risk. One that is certain to grow as the EV ages. One that is apt to become much more obvious as more EVs are on the road – and aging.

          Then you oilily conflate hybrids with EVs, as if there were an equivalence. There is only a distant relationship. Hybrids are primarily not electrically propelled. They have much smaller batteries that present a much smaller fire risk.

          You write:

          “You seem to “forget” fair and balanced reporting when demonizing EVs, helmets, etc.”

          I state facts about EVs – and you style this “demonizing” them. I posit arguments against laws forcing people to wear helmets – and you style this demonizing helmets.

          And you ask me why I drink…

          • I had a 1972 Chevy Nova spontaneously combust on me many years ago. The car would not start, so I opened the hood and manually pumped the carburetor to see if there was gas-nothing. I figured it may be blocked so I used a lighter to peer down into the carb. Suddenly the car spontaneously combusted! Fortunately I had a beer handy to put out the flame before there was any damage. So I can attest ICE’s can spontaneously combust.

          • There is no evidence any EV started the fires on those ships.

            Maybe they just contributed to fires started elsewhere on the ships.

            How often do cargo ships catch on fire?

            The global insurance company Allianz just released a report on this about a month ago. They say there were 200 fires reported on large shipping vessels in 2022 alone, the highest total in a decade, and 43 of them were on cargo or container ships.
            Jul 7, 2023

            The very small number of spontaneous EV fires so far do not offset the FAR LESS EV fires in total.

            Your love to scaremonger with the bad news of a few spontaneous EV fires, while ignoring the larger good news of total EV fires.

            That is demonizing EVs. Not fair and balanced reporting.

            When you attack helmets without reporting how many lives and serious head injuries they precent, that is demonizing helmets. Not fair and balanced reporting.

            I see a pattern here.

            Listing the problems and ignoring the benefits.

            • Richard writes:

              “There is no evidence any EV started the fires on those ships.”

              Yeah. And there’s no evidence that the “vaccines” and “died suddenly” are related.

              You serially miss the point – about the fact that EVs can and have – and will – spontaneously catch fire.

            • Richard writes:

              “When you attack helmets without reporting how many lives and serious head injuries they precent, that is demonizing helmets. Not fair and balanced reporting.”

              No, you imbecile. Whether helmet wearing “saves lives” was not the point of my article. As I have explained now to you at least three times – because you are that thick-skulled – the article was a critique of forcing people to accept the cost-benefit views of others.

              Also, what I do is not reporting, per se. It is news analysis. Reporters are basically (ought to be) stenographers. If you want that, go find it somewhere else.

              • So many times in articles such as this I try very hard, & often fail, to avoid talking about such things as ER Dr’s saying a helmet is worthless at stopping concussions.

                BeCause, I think this is more to the point:

                “No, you imbecile. Whether helmet wearing “saves lives” was not the point of my article. As I have explained now to you at least three times – because you are that thick-skulled – the article was a critique of forcing people to accept the cost-benefit views of others.”

                It’s as if, you said, “Squirrel!”

                …And, off they went.

                ‘Who Owns the World?’
                By Joseph Mercola.

                https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/10/joseph-mercola/who-owns-the-world/

                The LRC title: ‘This is Perhaps the Most Important Video and Article You Will Ever Encounter. They Briefly Explain How the World Really Works.’

                If, you have to ask, what has that to do with helmet laws,… you’re simply not paying attention.

                • Good stuff, Helot!

                  People such as Richard are exasperating. They aren’t stupid – in the low IQ sense. But they are obtuse and often belligerently so. For example, Richard’s serial refusal to understand that it is not helmets I oppose. It is this business of forcing people to wear them. I prefer not to wear them – irrespective of the “benefits,” which are (to me) of less value than the benefits I derive from not wearing them. This is my cost-benefit analysis – and it really gets my back up when some arrogant control freak tries to tell me I’m “wrong” and that I ought to be forced to change my habits to hew to their cost-benefit analysis. Fuck you, asshole. You aren’t my parent. And I am not your child. Go mind your own business and leave me alone. It’s a common courtesy people like Richard do not understand – or do not respect.

        • Akin to a “Two and a Half Men” episode, where jingle writer Charlie Harper has inexplicably forayed, successfully, into children’s songs, and has to overcome stage fright to perform at a concert he’s reluctant to do. He “solves” the problem, as usual, with a quart of rum, showing up for the concert “plowed”. When brother Alan asks Charlie’s manager if he’s bothered that Charlie’s performing drunk in front of a hall full of small children and their parents, the man replies, “He’s a musician. It’d bother me more if he were sober”.

    • “Spontaneous fires of parked EVs are very rare. But they are great for EV scaremongering.”

      Just like people backing their vehicles over children, which led to mandatory backup cameras. See, governments love to use “scaremongering” to advance their particular agenda. Of course, they tend to ignore other “rare events” if they don’t fit a certain narrative.

      • According to Richardcasheyearthluber, seat belts save lives, airbags save lives, backup cameras save lives, therefore they should be mandatory for all drivers. By this logic, possessing a vehicle that is capable of bursting into flames should be banned by the GovCo, at least until they solve the problems contributing to a lack of safety. Its for the good of the many, for who knows how many will die from the toxic smoke emitted in the name of, cleaning up the air?

          • Wrong. According to your own form of reasoning, on display here all the time, GovCo should insist on safety measures being put in place. For the good of what(who)ever, at whatever fraction of a fraction they glom onto.

            You either have a free society or you don’t. Picking and choosing won’t end well. Especially since the decider is a thoroughly corrupt, bought and paid for government, hell bent on pure tyrannical lawlessness.

          • Richard writes:

            “The logic is to compare costs with benefits, and then make a logical decision.”

            The point is to mind your own goddamned business and leave such cost-benefit analysis to the parties directly involved.

          • “The logic is to compare costs with benefits, and then make a logical decision.”
            Which I’ve done many times. I always get the same result. Government is far too dangerous to leave lying around. When they kill, they do it by the millions.

            • How very true. The government is a pesky two-year old, that, when he goes quiet, you have to grow very suspicious, and get out of your chair, because you know he is getting into trouble somewhere. Which means trouble for you, too.

      • I’ll drive a vehicle that has one impressive “safety” record…an M1 Anrams. No American M1 tank crewman has ever died in an Abrams due to enemy action. To date, the count of M1s lost in combat, including “friendly fire”, stands at 87 vehicles.

        I’m sure the “safety” record isn’t so great for those that FACED the Abrams. Note use of past tense.

  20. Eric,

    When I got my home insurance renewal, I was shocked. Why? Instead of increasing incrementally, i.e. a few percent as it had previously, my premium SHOT UP OVER 32%! It was a 32.4% increase to be more precise. I was surprised, because: 1) I’d never made a claim on my home insurance; and 2) I didn’t change my coverage at all. I was like, WTF?

    When I called my insurance company, they gave me a few reasons why this is happening. One, they said that there were more natural disasters that caused big losses. Two, they said that the cost of building materials, such as lumber, had markedly increased in recent years. Three, they said that the cost of labor (due to a shortage of construction workers and tradesmen) also figured into the increases. Though Travelers isn’t my company, they have the most understandable article about why these increases are happening; they’re the same talking points my insurance company gave me. You can read here: https://www.travelers.com/resources/home/insuring/why-did-my-homeowners-insurance-go-up

    What they didn’t say was that EVs figured into the equation; they’re not mentioned at all. Though EVs are still a small portion of the car population, there are enough of them out there to impact home insurance rates. What I’d like to know is WHY insurance companies don’t refuse coverage to EV owners? Why do they cover them for either car or home insurance, given the risks involved? I know that, thanks to e-bikes going up, an increasing number of landlords and building owners are PROHIBITING e-bikes to be kept inside their buildings in NYC! There have been many fires with fatalities, thanks to the e-bikes.

    As for the Li-Ion batteries, why aren’t safer chemistries used? There are multiple types of Li-Ion batteries; i.e. not all Li-Ion batteries are the same. You can learn more about Li-Ion batteries here: https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-205-types-of-lithium-ion

    In closing, my home insurance SHOT UP OVER 32% this year! When I called to find out why, I was given the same talking points that the Travelers article above gave; EVs weren’t mentioned. However, given the fact that there are over 2.5 million EVs on American roads now; given the nasty tendency for Li-Ion batteries to catch fire; how can they not impact home and car insurance rates?

    • This is terrible, Mark –

      I despise these mafiosi. Most people are much better off saving money rather than buying “coverage.” Do the math – as the saying goes. If a person spends $2,000 annually for coverage, over 20 years that is $40,000. Not counting the opportunity cost (i.e., what you might have done with that $40,000 to make more money over those 20 years). How likely is it that you will suffer a $40k loss? Assuming you’re not (Ren & Stimpy voice) an idiot and assuming you were smart enough to not buy a house that’s close to a river or the ocean or in a place where tornadoes and so on predictably occur – then it is extremely unlikely that you will ever suffer a major loss.

      Put aside that $2,000 annually and after 40 years, you will have $80,000 – as opposed to having nothing other than “coverage.”

    • Hi Mark,
      Another ingredient that affects rates is the reinsurance market. I’m on the board of a small rural property & casualty insurance company, and we have to have reinsurance that will kick in if we have catastrophic losses that our reserves won’t cover. State law requires it. Our reinsurer doesn’t dictate our rates directly, but it’s understood that if we don’t keep them high enough to cover our routine losses and keep building reserves, they might drop us. Then we’d be out of business. Right now conditions are such that some reinsurers are running on fumes, and all have gotten very picky about who they contract with, so the pressure is on to raise rates.

    • ‘What I’d like to know is WHY insurance companies don’t refuse coverage to EV owners?’ — MarkyMark

      Probably for the same reason that auto makers are incurring billions in losses to roll out EeeVees that have only sketchy demand — compliance.

      Going along with the War on Carbon is mandatory for any regulated business (such as insurance) to STAY in business.

      Insurance companies are state-regulated, and most states are falling into line with the EeeVee Endgame narrative. At least in Commiefornia and its 14 CARB fellow travelers, refusing to cover EeeVees would result in swift retribution, and possibly expulsion from the market.

      To stay in business, better to accept the risk, and pass it on to ICE drivers in higher premiums. EeeVees become their cross to bear, not the company’s.

      Have you ever been (have you ever been) to Electric Autoland?
      The magic carpet waits for you so don’t you be late
      Oh, (I wanna show you) the different emotions
      (I wanna run to) the sounds and motions
      Electric pickup waits for you and me

      — Jimi Hendrix, Electric Ladyland

      • Jim,

        I understand that many corporations push Wokeism, in part, to keep their DEI score up, or as I prefer to call it, their DIE score. I think that Bud Light, at least in part, did what they did as part of keeping their DIE score up. The people pushed back though, and AB InBev, Bud Light’s parent company, has lost serious money and market cap. People have had enough of the BS!

        That puts companies in a Catch-22. They need to take actions (going Woke) to keep their DIE score high, so they can get the credit and financing they need to operate; the banks won’t give them money if their DIE score drops. However, if they do that, then they risk upsetting the customers and inducing a boycott; boycotts cost them money too. So, what do they do?

        Insurance companies face the same conundrum. If they don’t insure EV owners’ cars and homes, they can lose their authorization to operate. However, if the insurance companies assume an unmanageable and untenable risk, they also risk going out of business, because they’ll pay out more in claims than they collect for premiums. No business can lose money for very long and remain viable.

      • The political fallout of refusal to insure EVs would be intolerable for them. Like any other like risk, spread over all the policy holders, so EVERYONE pays. As far as any state’s Department of Insurance is concerned, ALL insurers are “mutual”, and THEY are the CEO!

    • I shop for a new insurance company every year to control costs. There is always at least one company looking for new customers, with low prices.

      I did that last year and ended up with Allstate home insurance and State Farm car insurance. This year they hiked rates a lot, as usual after the low priced first year.

      I went to an independent agent this year and shopped around. This year the winner was Safeco, owned by Nationwide. My annual bill for one home and one car insurance was $1,600, about $670 less than my existing companies planned to charge for my second year, but the same as I paid them the prior year. I also have higher than usual deductibles, and have no claims in many decades.

      The real surprise is that lots of insurers lost money on auto insurance in 2022.

      Independent insurance agents save you money. The savings per hour, from an hour or two visit with an independent agent, has been very high for us over many decades.

        • Yeah, but if you have a note on your house or car you are likely going to have to do it.
          By the way, that threat of “If you can’t get that price down I’m going to stop buying it” works great on independent agents, which I’ve always used.

          • And that’s fine. But the point stands that the cost of home insurance will increase – and many people (most, probably) have to pay it because they do not yet own their homes. Also, some dick is likely to urge that a “law” be passed requiring “coverage” – even if you do own your home – because otherwise “society” might have to foot the bill.

            • The justification would be that the State and County have an interest due to the property as a TAX base. E.G., they want YOU to pay for property insurance that protects THEIR interest, not YOURS.

  21. Satan is envious that BEV’s burn hotter than hell.

    Fools go where angels fear to tread.

    That would be the BEV stores these days.

  22. In this case, it was in the garage, it was not charging, and had just been sitting in there for 22 hours, when it lit up by itself. They dragged it out after the fire.

    • Garage. Florida marine environment not far from the water. Looks like the typical fancy lad house on reclaimed swampland.

      Not the Gulf, but still not a temperate part of Southern California.

    • BTW, she thought it would be safe since it was a loaner from the dealer.

      Bahahahaha.

      That thing was run at “Ludicrous” speed at some point by the guys in the service department just for the thrill of it. Ever seen “Ferris Bueller”?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here