Electric Vehicle Fire Myths

Welcome back everyone, I'm Jordan Geisigee, and this is The Limiting Factor. If you've spent any time watching or reading the news in the past 10 years, you've probably seen headlines about electric vehicle fires, or even entire parking lots or cargo ships going up in flames due to electric vehicle fires. Because of that, a lot of people have come to the conclusion that electric vehicles are more likely to catch fire than internal combustion vehicles, or that when they do catch fire, the fire is more dangerous. So is that actually the case, or is this just another case of selective clickbait journalism? As you can probably guess, based on the title of the video, it's clickbait journalism. Electric vehicles are actually 8 times less likely to catch fire than an internal combustion vehicle.

欢迎大家回来，我是乔丹·盖西格，这是《限制因素》。如果你在过去十年里花时间看过新闻，你可能见过关于电动车起火的新闻标题，甚至可能见过因为电动车起火而导致整个停车场或货船被火烧的报道。因为这些报道，很多人认为电动车比内燃机车更容易起火，或者说电动车起火时火势更加危险。那么，事实真的是这样吗？还是这只是媒体为了吸引眼球而选择性报道呢？正如你从视频标题中可能猜到的，这其实是吸引眼球的新闻。实际上，电动车起火的可能性是内燃机车的八分之一。

And although EV fires do burn hotter, they burn up their fuel more slowly, because rather than storing their energy in a single large fuel tank, they store it in hundreds or thousands of battery cells packaged in flame resistant material like steel, which are in turn divided by fire resistant barriers and enclosed in fire resistant housing. That means despite a higher core fire temperature, EV battery fires actually experience a lower peak heat release rate, which means that the risk of an EV fire spreading to surrounding vehicles and structures ends up being similar to an internal combustion vehicle. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Today, I'm going to back up my safety claim with several sources of fire data, research papers that have set vehicles on fire to measure heat flows and real world examples, because nothing quite hits home like anecdotal evidence. Along the way, I'll also explain why people's concerns about lithium ion battery fires aren't unfounded, but simply directed at the wrong products.

尽管电动汽车的火灾温度更高，但它们燃料的燃烧速度更慢。这是因为电动汽车并不是将能量储存在一个大的油箱中，而是储存在成百上千个电池单元中，这些电池单元被包装在像钢这样的耐火材料中，且由耐火隔板分隔，并封装在防火外壳中。因此，尽管核心火灾温度较高，电动汽车电池火灾的峰值热释放率较低，这意味着电动汽车火灾蔓延到周围车辆和建筑物的风险与内燃机汽车相似。但这只是问题的一部分。今天，我将用多个来源的火灾数据、通过燃烧车辆来测量热流的研究论文和真实的案例来支持我的安全主张，因为没有什么比实际案例更能说明问题了。在此过程中，我还会解释为什么人们对锂离子电池火灾的担忧并非毫无根据，而是指向了错误的产品。

Before we begin, a special thanks to my Patreon supporters, YouTube members and Twitter subscribers, as well as RebellionAir.com. They specialize in helping investors manage concentrated positions. RebellionAir can help with covered calls, risk management, and creating a money master plan from your financial first principles. Let's start by comparing the likelihood of an electric vehicle catching fire with internal combustion vehicles. I found three reliable data sources. First, the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency reported that ICE vehicles were 20 times more likely to catch fire than electric vehicles. Second, EV fires say out of Australia, which collects and reports data on EV fires globally found that, across all countries, ICE vehicles are 80 times more likely to catch fire than electric vehicles. Third, Tesla's reported that the average vehicle in the US is 8 times more likely to catch fire than a Tesla vehicle.

在我们开始之前，我要特别感谢我的Patreon支持者、YouTube会员和Twitter订阅者，以及RebellionAir.com。他们专门帮助投资者管理集中持股。RebellionAir可以帮助进行备兑认购、风险管理，并制定从财务基础原则出发的理财总计划。让我们先来比较一下电动车着火的可能性与内燃机车辆相比。我找到三个可靠的数据来源。首先，瑞典民事紧急事务局报告称，内燃机车辆着火的可能性是电动车的20倍。其次，来自澳大利亚的电动车着火报告收集并全球范围内统计了电动车着火的数据，发现内燃机车辆着火的可能性是电动车的80倍。第三，特斯拉报告称，美国的普通车辆着火的可能性是特斯拉车辆的8倍。

That's surprising because you'd think that Tesla's data would be more biased in favor of EVs than government-funded work out of Sweden and Australia because Tesla sells EVs. But instead, their figures are the most conservative. That is, it's clear Tesla isn't trying to exaggerate the safety performance of their products or engage in fear mongering about their competition. But it does raise the question of why Tesla's numbers are so much more conservative. I see two primary reasons. First, Tesla's site's vehicles per billion miles traveled. That's as opposed to the other sources, which appear to both site the number of vehicle fires as a proportion of the number of vehicles on the road. In my view, that skews the data in favor of EVs because they tend to be about a third of the age of the average vehicle on the road. And older vehicles are more likely to get into accidents and catch fire.

这很令人惊讶，因为你可能会认为，特斯拉的数据会比瑞典和澳大利亚的政府资助研究更偏向电动车，毕竟特斯拉是电动车的销售商。但实际上，他们的数据是最保守的。这说明特斯拉并没有试图夸大他们产品的安全性能，也没有试图恐吓他们的竞争对手。但这也引发了一个问题，为什么特斯拉的数字如此保守。我认为有两个主要原因。首先，特斯拉参考的是每十亿英里行驶的车辆数量，而其他来源提到的好像是道路上车辆起火的比例。在我看来，这会使数据偏向电动车，因为电动车的平均车龄大约只有普通车辆的三分之一。而车龄较长的车辆更有可能发生事故和起火。

Second, Tesla's data includes fire events that are unrelated to the vehicle itself, such as structure fires, wildfires, and arson. It's as opposed to the data for the US average of all vehicles, which doesn't include data from sources like structure fires. There are a few other potential minor reasons why Tesla's data ended up being more conservative. But the key takeaway here is that even with assumptions that favor the internal combustion vehicle data, Tesla's vehicles are still eight times less likely to catch fire. The only caveat I'd add here is that Tesla's data isn't perfectly representative of all EV batteries, because Tesla has an above average track record for battery reliability. That is, not all batteries are created equal. So if you're planning on buying an EV, it's always worth checking if that brand or vehicle has a history of recalls.

其次，特斯拉的数据包括与车辆本身无关的火灾事件，例如建筑火灾、野火和纵火。这与美国所有车辆的平均数据不同，后者并未包括来自建筑火灾等来源的数据。还有一些其他潜在的小原因导致特斯拉的数据显得更加保守。但关键在于，即使在假设对内燃机车辆数据有利的情况下，特斯拉车辆起火的可能性仍然低八倍。需要注意的是，特斯拉的数据并不能完全代表所有电动汽车电池，因为特斯拉在电池可靠性方面比平均水平更出色。也就是说，不是所有电池的质量都一样。因此，如果你计划购买电动汽车，最好检查该品牌或车辆是否有召回的历史。

With that said, given that Tesla dominates the US EV market, their data would still be strongly representative of US EV data as a whole. Next, let's take a look at the intensity of EV versus ICE vehicle fires. Many people point to the fact that EV fires burn hotter than gasoline or diesel fires as proof that EVs have worse fire safety. That's a false assumption. Why? Let's take a look. With an internal combustion vehicle, the fuel is all held in one large tank. When it ignites, it releases that energy quickly and at a temperature of around 800 degrees Celsius. With a lithium ion battery, the fire temperature can be well over 2000 degrees Celsius. However, in an EV battery pack, the battery cells, which often have a steel jacket, are surrounded by insulative potting material and fire resistant dividers that are used between groups of cells. All of that, in turn, is surrounded by a fire resistant housing made of materials like steel.

话虽如此，考虑到特斯拉在美国电动车市场的主导地位，他们的数据仍能很好地代表美国电动车的数据。接下来，我们来看一下电动车与内燃机车火灾的强度对比。很多人认为电动车起火温度比汽油或柴油车高，就证明电动车的防火安全性更差。这是一种错误的假设。为什么呢？我们来看一下。对于内燃机车，燃料都储存在一个大型油箱中，当燃料点燃时，会迅速释放能量，温度约为800摄氏度。而锂离子电池的火灾温度可以超过2000摄氏度。然而，在电动车电池组中，电池单元通常有钢制外壳，并被绝缘填充材料和用于分隔电池单元组的耐火隔板包围。所有这些再加上由钢等材料制成的耐火外壳。

What that means is that when one or several battery cells ignite, it takes time for the fire to spread from cell to cell before engulfing the entire battery pack and the vehicle. The fire protection in an EV is so good that even if you deliberately light the passenger cabin on fire, the battery pack won't necessarily ignite. For example, last year, arsonists in Frankfurt, Germany tried to set 15 Teslas on fire. The fire did spread between vehicles, but the fire department was able to douse the blaze before the pack caught fire and had the blaze under control within an hour. Let's move on from theory and anecdotes and take a look at a research paper by Arbudson and Westland from the Research Institutes of Sweden, titled, Water Spray Fire Suppression Test, comparing gasoline-fueled and battery electric vehicles.

这段话的意思是，当一个或多个电池单元起火时，火焰需要一些时间才能从一个电池单元蔓延到整个电池组以至于整个车辆。电动车的防火性能非常好，即使故意点燃乘客舱，电池组也不一定会着火。例如，去年在德国法兰克福，有纵火犯试图点燃15辆特斯拉。火势在车辆之间蔓延，但消防队在电池组着火之前成功扑灭了火焰，并在一小时内控制住了火势。让我们从理论和案例中转移视线，来看一份由瑞典研究院的Arbudson和Westland撰写的研究论文，标题是《水喷雾灭火测试》，比较汽油驱动汽车和电池电动车辆。

As the title indicates, the researchers ignited both EV and ICE vehicles with a test setup that included a sprinkler system to help control the fires as well as equipment to measure heat flows. That resulted in the graphs on screen. On the left is the internal combustion vehicle fire, and on the right is the battery electric vehicle fire. For the ICE vehicle, the fire almost immediately triggers the sprinkler system. Despite that, within a few minutes, the heat release rate hits 8,000 kW. For the EV, it takes about 12 minutes for the battery pack to reach thermal runaway and trigger the sprinkler system. And the heat release rate never goes above 3000 kW. What this shows is that at its core, even though a battery fire may burn hotter than a gasoline-based fire, it burns through its fuel more slowly.

正如标题所指出的，研究人员在测试中点燃了电动汽车（EV）和内燃机汽车（ICE），测试装置包括一个喷水系统以帮助控制火势，并配备了测量热量流动的设备。屏幕上显示的图表，左边是内燃机汽车的火灾，右边是电动汽车的火灾。对于内燃机汽车，火灾几乎立即触发了喷水系统。尽管如此，几分钟内热释放速率达到了8000千瓦。对于电动汽车，其电池组需要大约12分钟才会发生热失控并触发喷水系统。并且其热释放速率从未超过3000千瓦。这表明，虽然电池火灾可能比汽油火灾燃烧得更热，但它燃烧燃料的速度更慢。

Let's take a look at the implications of that. First, the total energy released from an EV fire is similar to that of an ICE vehicle fire. That means the risk of an electric vehicle fire spreading to other vehicles and structures is comparable to an internal combustion vehicle. So for every large-scale fire that you see on the news started by an EV, you can easily find another fire started by an ICE vehicle. For example, on the EV side, there was recently a fire at Rivians factory that damaged 50 vehicles. However, last year at London Airport's parking garage, a diesel vehicle started a fire that destroyed 1500 vehicles and the parking garage itself.

让我们来看看这意味着什么。首先，电动车起火释放的总能量与内燃机汽车起火的能量相似。这意味着电动车火灾蔓延到其他车辆和建筑物的风险与内燃机汽车相当。因此，每当你在新闻中看到一起由电动车引发的大规模火灾，你同样可以轻易找到另一场由内燃机汽车引发的火灾。比如，最近在Rivian的工厂发生了一起火灾，损坏了50辆车。然而，去年在伦敦机场的停车场，一辆柴油车引发了火灾，烧毁了1500辆车和整个停车场。

The second implication of the thermal ramp and delayed onset of an EV battery fire is that passengers have time to exit the vehicle before it catches fire. The battery management system warns the driver if the battery pack is going into thermal runaway and regulations stipulate that the passengers have at least five minutes between that warning which occurs at the first cell failure and the entire pack igniting. But five minutes is the minimum. EV manufacturers often push far beyond the regulatory requirements and aim to design battery packs that resist fully igniting for one hour or more. That's as opposed to fires that involve gasoline which can lead to massive, rapidly igniting fire balls that can't be escaped.

电动车电池火灾的热冲击和延迟起火的第二层含义是，乘客有时间在车辆起火前下车。电池管理系统会在电池组即将发生热失控时提醒驾驶员，并且法规规定，从出现第一个电池故障警告到整个电池组燃烧，乘客至少有五分钟的时间撤离。但这只是最低要求。为了提高安全性，电动车制造商往往会在法规要求的基础上做得更好，目标是设计一种能至少抵抗一小时完全燃烧的电池组。这与汽油火灾不同，汽油火灾可能会迅速形成巨大的火球，使人无法逃生。

Besides the safety of passengers and surrounding structures and vehicles, how do EV fires impact first responders and bystanders? First, lithium-ion batteries contain all the ingredients necessary to sustain a fire. That means they're more difficult to extinguish and also carry a much greater risk of re-ignition, hours or even days after the initial blaze. But as long as first responders are trained to deal with those factors, they're manageable. For example, a fire blanket can be used to help smother the fire. Then a directed water jet can be used to penetrate and cool the battery pack. After a few hours when it's cool, the EV can be placed in a container filled with sand to prevent re-ignition.

除了涉及乘客和周围建筑物及车辆的安全外，电动汽车（EV）火灾如何影响急救人员和旁观者？首先，锂离子电池含有维持火势所需的所有成分，即它们更难扑灭，并且在初次燃烧后数小时甚至数天后再燃的风险也更大。但只要急救人员接受过处理这些因素的培训，这些情况是可以应对的。比如，可以使用灭火毯来帮助抑制火势。然后可以使用定向水流喷射渗透并冷却电池组。经过几个小时冷却后，可以将电动汽车放入装满沙子的容器中，以防止再次起火。

Second, in terms of toxic fumes, interestingly, regardless of whether it's an EV or ice vehicle fire, once the fire is established, around 80% of the energy that fuels the vehicle fire actually comes from the hundreds of pounds of plastic and other materials in the car body and interior parts. When those materials burn, they can release hydrogen cyanide and carbon monoxide. So it doesn't matter what ignited the fire, battery or gasoline, the toxic plume is deadly. With regards to toxic runoff, that would heavily depend on the specific battery chemistry, such as iron or nickel. Either way, just like the smoke plume, the runoff from any vehicle fire is a toxic soup and best avoided. As the image on screen shows, it comes down to a matter of pick your poison. Moving along, the next concern about EV battery fires is that they may seem random and spontaneous thanks to the fires that have taken place due to recalls.

其次，就有毒烟雾而言，有趣的是，不管是电动车还是内燃机汽车起火，一旦火势蔓延，大约80%的能量实际上来自汽车车身和内饰中数百磅的塑料和其他材料。当这些材料燃烧时，它们可能释放出氰化氢和一氧化碳。因此，无论是电池还是汽油引发火灾，有毒的烟雾同样致命。至于有毒的流出物，这在很大程度上取决于特定的电池化学成分，比如铁或镍。无论哪种情况，就像烟雾一样，任何车辆火灾产生的流出物都是有毒物质，最好远离。正如屏幕上的图像所示，这就是所谓的“选择你的毒药”。继续讨论，关于电动车电池火灾的另一个问题是，由于召回事件，这些火灾看起来可能随机且自发。

Let's address that by first taking a look at how and where EV fires occur using data from EV fires, say. First between 2010 and 2024, or 14 years of data collected globally, of the 214 vehicle fires that they have investigation reports on, 119 or 56% were due to road accidents. 28 or 13% were due to being submerged in water, 45 or 21% were due to a battery fault during manufacture, and 22 or 10% were due to external fires spreading to the EV. That means 169 of the 214 fires, or 79% were situations where the battery fire wasn't a randomly occurring fault within the battery. That leaves 45 of the 214 or 21% being random due to manufacturing faults. How does that compare to ICE vehicles? I couldn't find data that's exactly comparable to the EV fire safe data, but NFPA, or the National Fire Protection Agency in the United States, shows that only 5% of ICE vehicle fires were due to road accidents.

让我们先通过使用电动汽车起火的数据来看看电动汽车是如何以及在哪里发生起火事故的。假设使用2010年至2024年这14年间在全球收集的数据，214起车辆火灾有调查报告。其中119起或56%是由于交通事故造成的。28起或13%是因为车辆被水淹没，45起或21%是因为制造过程中电池故障，22起或10%是由于外部火灾蔓延到电动车上的。这意味着214起火灾中，有169起或79%的电池火灾并不是电池内部随机发生的故障。剩下的45起或21%则是由于制造故障引起的随机火灾。与内燃机（ICE）车辆相比如何呢？我没有找到与电动汽车火灾安全数据完全可比的数据，但美国国家消防协会（NFPA）表明，仅有5%的内燃机车辆火灾是由于交通事故引起的。

That's as compared to 56% for EVs. Another 16% of ICE vehicle fires were due to arson, fires spreading to the vehicle, or smoking. That leaves 68% of ICE vehicle fires being due to electrical and mechanical failures or malfunctions from triggers like exposed wires and fuel leaks, which occur randomly. Those incidents can be prevented or reduced, with maintenance and by driving a newer vehicle, but from a customer perspective, there is random as a battery igniting due to a manufacturing defect. So when it comes to the unpredictability or randomness of EV fires, in my view, EVs are less likely to burst into flames with seemingly no warning to the customer. 21% of incidents vs. 68% of incidents.

与电动车发生火灾的比例为56%相比，还有16%的燃油车火灾是由于纵火、火势蔓延到车辆或吸烟引起的。这样一来，燃油车火灾中有68%是由于电气和机械故障或如裸露电线和燃料泄漏等原因随机引发的。这些事故可以通过维修保养或驾驶更新的车辆来预防或减少，但从客户的角度看，这些故障就像电池因制造缺陷而起火一样具有随机性。因此，从我个人的观点来看，谈到电动车火灾的不可预测性或随机性，电动车比较不容易毫无预警地自燃。21%的事故率对比68%的事故率。

As a side note, for those that are curious about the impact of charging, EV fire safe states that 15% of EV fires occur during charging. However, as they point out, a normally operating EV and electrically compliant charging equipment cannot cause a fire thanks to inbuilt safety checks. That is, as I said earlier, make sure you purchase an EV make or model with a good track record of quality control, and make sure that your charging equipment is installed properly. For example, don't use cheap equipment that can melt and burn the house down. Before we move on, another fear often raised with EV battery packs is VaporCloud Explosions or VCEs. There's three things worth noting about VCEs. First, let's not forget the explosive power of gasoline, where hundreds of millions of gallons per day is in transit and risking the lives of anyone nearby.

备注：对于那些对充电影响感兴趣的人来说，根据EV Fire Safe的数据，15%的电动汽车火灾发生在充电期间。然而，他们指出，正常运行的电动汽车和符合电气标准的充电设备不会导致火灾，因为它们内置了安全检查装置。也就是说，正如我之前提到的，确保购买具备良好质量控制历史的电动汽车品牌或型号，并确保充电设备正确安装。例如，不要使用便宜的设备，以免熔化并引发火灾。在继续之前，另一个关于电动汽车电池包的常见担忧是蒸汽云爆炸（VCEs）。关于VCEs，有三点值得注意。首先，不要忘记汽油的爆炸威力，每天有数亿加仑的汽油在运输，对周围人的生命构成风险。

It's just that people have become accustomed to that risk. Yes, lithium ion battery fires in the home are especially scary, but I'll cover that later in the video. Second, as I covered earlier, every type of fire involves unique risks. It's just a matter of training and education to understand and adapt to those risks. Third, of the 511 vehicle fires worldwide that EV fire safe gathered data on in the last 14 years, only 22 of them or 4% involved a VaporCloud explosion, or put another way of the 40 million electric vehicles on the road today, which doesn't include the ones that were retired from service in the last 14 years, 22 experienced a VaporCloud explosion. That means the odds of a VaporCloud explosion from an EV are almost 1 in 2 million over the course of about 4 years, which is the average age of those 40 million EVs, so we're talking about an extremely rare event.

其实，人们已经习惯了这种风险。是的，家中的锂电池起火确实特别可怕，但我会在视频后面详细讲解。其次，如我之前所说的，每种火灾都有其独特的风险，只需通过培训和教育来理解并适应这些风险。第三，EV Fire Safe在过去14年中收集的数据显示，全球511起车辆火灾中，只有22起，也就是4%，涉及到蒸汽云爆炸。再换句话说，在目前4000万辆电动车中（不包括过去14年中退役的那些），只有22辆发生过蒸汽云爆炸。这意味着，在约4年的时间内，电动车发生蒸汽云爆炸的几率大约是200万分之一，这可以说是一个极其罕见的事件。

Next, it's worth mentioning overall vehicle safety because not only are EVs safer in terms of fire risks, they also tend to be safer in general. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, for EVs between 2011 and 2019, injury claims related to the drivers and passengers of electric vehicles were more than 40% lower than for internal combustion vehicles. Why is that? Several reasons, but let's look at one of the largest ones. When a vehicle is involved in a head-on collision, the more compressible energy-absorbing volume it has between the passenger and the object it's colliding with, the less violent the G-forces that the passengers experience. In an internal combustion vehicle, the engine is relatively large. It sits at the front of the vehicle and it's not compressible. That's as opposed to an EV, where the motors are small, so most of the front of the vehicle is usually trunk space, which provides more crushable volume in a vehicle accident, making it easier to engineer a safer vehicle. That doesn't always guarantee a safer vehicle, but it's why Tesla vehicles have some of the highest safety ratings of any vehicles on the road.

接下来，值得一提的是车辆的整体安全性，因为电动车不仅在火灾风险方面更安全，总体上也更安全。根据美国公路安全保险协会的数据，2011年至2019年间，与内燃机车辆相比，电动车司机和乘客的伤害索赔数减少了40%以上。那么，为什么会这样呢？原因有很多，我们来看其中一个最主要的。 当车辆发生正面碰撞时，如果在乘客和碰撞物体之间有更多可压缩的能量吸收空间，乘客所承受的冲击力就会减小。在内燃机车辆中，发动机比较大，位于车的前部且不可压缩。而电动车的电动机相对较小，大部分前部通常是行李箱空间，这在车祸中提供了更多可压缩的空间，更容易设计出更安全的车辆。这并不总能保证车辆更安全，但这就是为什么特斯拉车辆在道路上拥有最高安全评级之一的原因。

As a final note, before we move on to the summary, it's important to point out that concerns about the flammability of lithium-ion batteries are well-founded. Lithium-ion batteries store a lot of energy, and there's always a potential for that energy to be released quickly and catastrophically. However, because lithium-ion batteries are a relatively new energy storage technology compared to fuels like gasoline, people aren't yet fully aware of the exact nature of their risk, and therefore when and how to be cautious with them, which naturally induces anxiety. For example, many people assume that because EVs have such high-capacity battery packs that those batteries carry the most risk. But counterintuitively, that's actually backwards. The battery packs and EVs are relatively safe. That's because they use sophisticated architectures, electronics, and cooling systems to maximize charging performance and useful battery life and to meet regulatory requirements for safety. That's as opposed to smaller electronic devices such as e-scooters and e-bikes, which have much less sophisticated battery safety and management controls, are often lower quality and are poorly regulated. Furthermore, those devices are usually stored inside the home, near people, and surrounded by flammable material.

在进入总结之前，有必要指出对锂离子电池易燃性的担忧是有依据的。锂离子电池储存了大量能量，始终存在这些能量被快速和灾难性释放的可能性。然而，由于锂离子电池相对于汽油等燃料而言是一种较新的储能技术，人们尚未完全了解其风险的具体性质，因此在何时何地需要谨慎使用，自然会引发焦虑。例如，很多人认为，由于电动汽车（EVs）配备了高容量的电池组，这些电池就更危险。但是令人意外的是，情况恰恰相反。电池组和电动汽车相对比较安全。这是因为它们使用了复杂的架构、电子系统和冷却系统，以最大化充电性能和电池寿命，并符合安全的法规要求。与之相对的是，一些小型电子设备如电动滑板车和电动自行车的电池安全管理控制较为简单，质量通常较低且监管不严。此外，这些设备通常存放在室内，靠近人和易燃物品周围。

As a result, for the first half of 2023 alone, there were more than 500 fires related to e-scooters and e-bikes, which resulted in 138 injuries and 36 deaths worldwide. That's as compared to EVs for the same six-month period, which resulted in 44 vehicle fires, 15 injuries, and 4 deaths worldwide. That is, smaller electronics like e-transport devices carry a risk that's more than an order of magnitude greater than EVs.

结果，仅在2023年上半年，就有超过500起与电动滑板车和电动自行车相关的火灾，导致138人受伤和36人死亡。而相比之下，同一时期，电动汽车共发生44起火灾，导致15人受伤和4人死亡。也就是说，像电动交通工具这样的小型电子设备的风险比电动汽车高出一个数量级以上。

And that doesn't even include fires caused by cell phones, tablets, and watches. In summary, the media and commentators are pumping a fear narrative with EV battery fires to sell clicks. But the reality is that EVs are at least eight times less likely to catch fire than internal combustion vehicles. That is, it's likely that the media narrative is costing lives rather than saving them.

这还不包括由手机、平板电脑和手表引起的火灾。总之，媒体和评论员们正在通过宣传电动车电池起火的恐惧故事来吸引眼球。然而，实际上，电动车发生火灾的可能性至少比内燃机车低八倍。也就是说，媒体的这种叙述可能是在浪费生命，而不是在拯救生命。

Although EV fires burn hotter, they burn through their fuel more slowly than ice vehicles do. That means the total energy released in both types of fires is similar, and 80% of that energy actually comes from all the other materials in the vehicle burning. But in turn means that EV fires are no more likely to spread to structures and other vehicles than an internal combustion vehicle fire.

虽然电动汽车的火灾燃烧温度更高，但它们燃烧其燃料的速度比内燃机汽车要慢。这意味着两种火灾释放的总能量是相似的，而其中80%的能量实际上来自于车辆中其他材料的燃烧。因此，电动汽车火灾并不比内燃机汽车火灾更容易蔓延到建筑物或其他车辆。

EV fires are more difficult to put out once ignited, and do carry a larger risk of re-ignition, but that can be dealt with through relatively cheap tools, procedures, and training. More importantly, the fire progression pattern of EV means that passengers have a bare minimum of five minutes to exit the vehicle before it's engulfed in flames, and in some cases over an hour.

电动汽车一旦起火，灭火难度较大，并且更容易复燃，但可以通过相对便宜的工具、程序和培训来解决。 更重要的是，电动汽车的起火进程意味着乘客至少有五分钟时间可以下车，在某些情况下甚至有超过一小时的逃生时间。

Yes, the fumes and runoff from an EV fire are toxic, but they're comparable to internal combustion vehicle fires. Lastly, beyond fire safety, which is just one aspect of vehicle safety, EVs tend to be more crash safe because it's easier to design them with larger crumple zones.

是的，电动车起火产生的烟雾和流出的液体是有毒的，但这和内燃机车辆起火时产生的毒性差不多。最后，除了防火安全，这只是车辆安全的一个方面，电动车往往在碰撞时更安全，因为设计上更容易留出更大的缓冲区。

That's not to mention the fact that EVs typically have a lower center of gravity, which reduces the chance of rollover, and the fact that they tend to include driver assistance features, which can dramatically reduce your odds of getting into a wreck in the first place. As a final note, the goal of this video isn't to get everyone driving an EV.

更不用说，电动车通常具有较低的重心，这降低了翻车的风险，而且它们往往配备驾驶辅助功能，这可以大大减少发生事故的可能。最后要说明的是，这个视频的目标不是让每个人都去开电动车。

I'd love it if everyone owned an EV because I own Tesla stock, but the reality is that EVs aren't for everyone. In terms of personal transport, we all have to make decisions based on our own personal needs, risk tolerance, and what we can afford. However, a lot of people just aren't working with accurate information, and they may not be aware that an EV is usually the safest option, not the most dangerous option.

我很希望每个人都拥有电动车，因为我持有特斯拉的股票，但现实是电动车并不适合所有人。在个人交通方面，我们都需要根据自己的需求、风险承受能力和经济能力做出选择。然而，很多人并没有准确的信息，他们可能不知道电动车通常是最安全的选择，而不是最危险的选择。

I'm hoping this video will help change the narrative to bring that to light, so if it provided value for you, please share this video with friends and family. If you enjoyed this video, please consider supporting the channel by using the links in the description. Also consider following me on X. I often use X as a testbed for sharing ideas, and X subscribers like my Patreon supporters generally get access to my videos a week early.

我希望这个视频能够改变现有的看法，让大家关注这个问题。如果你觉得这个视频有价值，请分享给你的朋友和家人。如果你喜欢这个视频，请考虑通过视频描述中的链接支持我的频道。另外，还可以关注我的X账号。我经常把X当作分享想法的试验平台，X的订阅者和我的Patreon支持者通常可以比别人提前一周看到我的视频。

On that note, a special thanks to my YouTube members, X subscribers, and all the other patrons listed in the credits. I appreciate all of your support, and thanks for tuning in.

在此，我要特别感谢我的 YouTube 会员、X 平台的订阅者和所有在鸣谢名单中的赞助者。非常感谢你们的支持，谢谢你们的观看。