The push to increase supply from Indonesia predates Ukraine. This process has been in the works for almost a decade as Indonesia looked to create jobs and their growth was fueled by China looking to control a major chunk of yet another commodity.

What Nortex is missing it is that most of Indonesia pig nickel is class 2 which goes into stainless steel production. Class 1 is what is used in batteries. Back to how all this started is the picture of an Indonesian mine and saying the damage was due to EVs which is interesting if most Indonesia nickel isn't of quality sufficient for cathodes. Btw, any metal mining looks bad when you take photos. It has been that way since man started extracting them from the earth. I agree with comments that politicians make the argument that EVs are green and will save the planet and as I have said many times, I don't agree with that but I also don't agree they are worse than ICE despite the EVidians continuing to try to make that claim.

"Chinese companies have built dozens of nickel smelters in Indonesia, especially after the Southeast Asian nation's government imposed a permanent ban on nickel ore exports in early 2020. Sulawesi and Halmahera islands have become hubs for such facilities, but most smelters churn out nickel pig iron, a feedstock for stainless steel."

PS. Class 2 can be upgraded to class 1 but it takes a lot more processing.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Markets/Commodities/Metals-expert-warns-of-shortage-of-high-grade-nickel-near-2030

South Korea to hold emergency discussions on EV fires:

Quote:

---

Electric vehicle fires are a fact of life and they're a serious problem as they're hard to deal with. South Korea knows this all too well and their Ministry of Environment will reportedly hold an emergency meeting to discuss a rash of fires.

The move comes shortly after a Mercedes EQE burst into flames in an underground parking garage at an Incheon apartment complex. The Japan Times says the ensuing blaze damaged approximately 140 vehicles, sent 23 people to the hospital, and resulted in more than 700 residents being evacuated.

This incident has reportedly pushed some buildings to prevent EVs from using their parking structures. However, it appears caution is far more common than outright bans.

Getting back to the latest developments, Reuters is reporting the government will announce "comprehensive measures regarding EV fires soon." This could come as early as next month and reports suggest the new rules could require automakers to disclose who provides batteries for their
electric vehicles

---

"Ministry of the Environment" just sounds dystopian, lol.

I thought this was also interesting as it is from 2020 from a CEO of a nickel company in China. It also has a great discussion of the ore grades and processing process for those so inclined to get into the weeds.

"the Chinese are going to build way more capacity than the market needs, just like they do for every other product,".

https://www.cruxinvestor.com/posts/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-class-1-2-and-intermediate-nickel-transcript#:~:text=So%2C%20a%20Class%201%20Nickel,for%20Nickel%20sulphate%20into%20cars.

GAC06 said:

---

When you vanished for a week after hph whack-a-mole'd every deflection you offered, and you declined to use your risk formula to back up your argument I figured you would stay away a while, and rightfully so. You're back with the one liner trolling again though so I guess we don't need to bid you "rest in peace in peace" as you say.

---

If he figured out how to extinguish an EV battery that is on fire and posted it, I missed that. Where's the link? I can't find it.

Not sure who you think you're arguing with but we've covered this.

"Using real data blows his argument to pieces, so just let him have his smug moment. Or maybe modify it to account for "creating its own oxygen" and multiply by threeve."

At least you're consistent.

GAC06 said:

---

Not sure who you think you're arguing with but we've covered this.

"Using real data blows his argument to pieces, so just let him have his smug moment. Or maybe modify it to account for "creating its own oxygen" and multiply by threeve."

At least you're consistent.

---

are you saying that there is NOT enough O2existing in the battery to sustain combustion?

GAC06 said:

---

Not sure who you think you're arguing with but we've covered this.

"Using real data blows his argument to pieces, so just let him have his smug moment. Or maybe modify it to account for "creating its own oxygen" and multiply by threeve."

At least you're consistent.

---

If you're going to claim my argument was "wackmoled" (bizarre phrasing btw) you shouldn't immediately demonstrate that you don't understand it.

When that battery goes it cannot be put out. That has not been refuted because it is true.

No one needs to refute your strawman. You claimed to use a risk formula, but when a poster used that formula to annihilate your argument, you reverted to claiming numbers don't matter because lithium battery fires are difficult to extinguish. HTH

nortex97 said:

---

South Korea to hold emergency discussions on EV fires:

Quote:

---

Electric vehicle fires are a fact of life and they're a serious problem as they're hard to deal with. South Korea knows this all too well and their Ministry of Environment will reportedly hold an emergency meeting to discuss a rash of fires.

The move comes shortly after a Mercedes EQE burst into flames in an underground parking garage at an Incheon apartment complex. The Japan Times says the ensuing blaze damaged approximately 140 vehicles, sent 23 people to the hospital, and resulted in more than 700 residents being evacuated.

This incident has reportedly pushed some buildings to prevent EVs from using their parking structures. However, it appears caution is far more common than outright bans.

Getting back to the latest developments, Reuters is reporting the government will announce "comprehensive measures regarding EV fires soon." This could come as early as next month and reports suggest the new rules could require automakers to disclose who provides batteries for their
electric vehicles

---

"Ministry of the Environment" just sounds dystopian, lol.

---

Wowzers. While the EVangelists cling to whatever perceived internet points they think they've won, real life consequences continue for those affected by these fires.

Is there really any question that a BEV fire is exponentially more difficult to extinguish than an ICE vehicle one? Personally, I think the fire fighters unions/safety folks are more credible than any given poster's source. They are essentially universally quite concerned about this.



An EV fire in/near a dwelling structure is just a totally different animal, imho.

Quote:

---

Is there really any question

---

I don't know. Is there? Who are y'all arguing against but yourselves? Who has claimed EV fires aren't more intense or difficult to extinguish than the much more likely and prevalent ICE fires?

GAC06 said:

---

No one needs to refute your strawman. You claimed to use a risk formula, but when a poster used that formula to annihilate your argument, you reverted to claiming numbers don't matter because lithium battery fires are difficult to extinguish. HTH

---

You still don't understand the argument you're claiming was annihilated. HTH.

If you can't tell me how to put the fire out, you can't convincingly argue there is less risk. Bad math doesn't change the basis of my point.

Illegal hookup to a power pole in Mexico led to a fire.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/tesla-owner-catches-car-and-house-on-fire-after-plugging-directly-into-power-line

Younger gen don't find Teslas cool anymore.

https://www.businessinsider.com/genz-interest-tesla-brand-decreases-survey-should-worry-elon-musk-2024-8

https://futurism.com/the-byte/zoomers-teslas-arent-cool

You know what is cool? An ICE sports car, all cylinders growling. That never grows old.

techno-ag said:

---

---

Only one poster has done math and shown his work, and it blew up PCG's nonsense. PCG still refuses to use the formula he claimed he's using because fire hot.

I can think of a few reasons

The newest Tesla is ugly (Cybertruck)
The owners have a chip on their shoulder
The newness has worn off

2 & 3 would turn a kid away from Tesla ownership

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I can think of a few reasons

The newest Tesla is ugly (Cybertruck)
The owners have a chip on their shoulder
The newness has worn off

2 & 3 would turn a kid away from Tesla ownership

---

Yup. Kids are susceptible to media influence. Media is telling them Elon is bad, and some buy into it.

techno-ag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I can think of a few reasons

The newest Tesla is ugly (Cybertruck)
The owners have a chip on their shoulder
The newness has worn off

2 & 3 would turn a kid away from Tesla ownership

---

Yup. Kids are susceptible to media influence. Media is telling them Elon is bad, and some buy into it.

---

I agree with all of above and want to add that it has slowly penetrated to the masses that EV's are not really all that "green". And it has become known that there is a lot of car stuff that was once maintainable in your garage that now requires a visit to the dealer.

techno-ag said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

South Korea to hold emergency discussions on EV fires:

Quote:

---

Electric vehicle fires are a fact of life and they're a serious problem as they're hard to deal with. South Korea knows this all too well and their Ministry of Environment will reportedly hold an emergency meeting to discuss a rash of fires.

The move comes shortly after a Mercedes EQE burst into flames in an underground parking garage at an Incheon apartment complex. The Japan Times says the ensuing blaze damaged approximately 140 vehicles, sent 23 people to the hospital, and resulted in more than 700 residents being evacuated.

This incident has reportedly pushed some buildings to prevent EVs from using their parking structures. However, it appears caution is far more common than outright bans.

Getting back to the latest developments, Reuters is reporting the government will announce "comprehensive measures regarding EV fires soon." This could come as early as next month and reports suggest the new rules could require automakers to disclose who provides batteries for their
electric vehicles

---

"Ministry of the Environment" just sounds dystopian, lol.

---

Wowzers. While the EVangelists cling to whatever perceived internet points they think they've won, real life consequences continue for those affected by these fires.

---

They're still worried about it. Day one of meetings was today.

https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/amp/news/power/south-korea-holds-emergency-meeting-as-ev-fires-stir-consumer-fear/112464069

Remember when "the math" was a 3x multiplier for the added damage? I'm gonna say it wasn't enough, the 1st sentence of the article.

"The fire on Aug. 1, which appeared to start spontaneously in a Mercedes-Benz EV parked below a residential building, took eight hours to put out, destroying or damaging about 140 cars and forcing some residents to move to shelters."

Turns out my argument wasn't annihilated after all, but that building was by (1) EV fire.

On 10 October there was a huge fire in London's Luton Airport. It resulted in the partial structural collapse of a car park, and an estimated 1500 vehicles were damaged, thankfully no one was killed.

https://www.landrovermonthly.co.uk/articles/news/the-truth-is-revealed/

Don't even have to go across the pond. 58 vehicles damaged in a fire at a used car auction lot in Denton.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/58-vehicles-involved-in-fire-at-automobile-auction-facility/3418951/?amp=1

And oops, it happened again less than 6 months later. Same location. 45 vehicles.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/denton-car-auction-facility-catches-on-fire-again/3533483/?amp=1

While my time machine warms up, I'll remind you these fires have already been posted in this thread. My point still stands, and if you can't see it you're choosing not to.

In other words information doesn't matter, you have a perception and no amount of contrary evidence will change that perspective. Gotcha. Not that it needed to be laid out so plainly.

hph6203 said:

---

In other words information doesn't matter, you have a perception and no amount of contrary evidence will change that perspective. Gotcha. Not that it needed to be laid out so plainly.

---

"Breaking news: all vehicle types can catch on fire."

Did you actually expect that to change anyones mind? Thats funny. Your problem is that you think you can facts and data your way out of common sense. Until you can actually explain how to extinguish an EV battery fire, you're not refuting what I'm actually saying.

Our next vehicle will probably be a Tesla. I think they'll have a lot more figured out when we're back in the market for a car in 3-5 years.

hph6203 said:

---

In other words information doesn't matter, you have a perception and no amount of contrary evidence will change that perspective. Gotcha. Not that it needed to be laid out so plainly.

---

The perception is indeed there. Every time a horrific fire breaks out that lasts for hours and destroys property etc etc you guys sit back and say derp derp ICE vehicles catch on fire too.

As if that means anything. You're totally missing the point. There is a valid concern about battery fires and no amount of hand waving is going to make that perception disappear overnight.

Risk = probability x whatever helps justify the argument I'm making

techno-ag said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

In other words information doesn't matter, you have a perception and no amount of contrary evidence will change that perspective. Gotcha. Not that it needed to be laid out so plainly.

---

The perception is indeed there. Every time a horrific fire breaks out that lasts for hours and destroys property etc etc you guys sit back and say derp derp ICE vehicles catch on fire too.

As if that means anything. You're totally missing the point. There is a valid concern about battery fires and no amount of hand waving is going to make that perception disappear overnight.

---

And they always say it as if we didn't already know. My point isn't the fire, it's putting it out….

GAC06 said:

---

Risk = probability x whatever helps justify the argument I'm making

---

Still waiting for you to show me how to extinguish an EV battery thats on fire…

Since we both know you can't I wont hold my breath.

Yes, don't hold your breath for me to address your strawman

It's not that there's not a valid concern it's whether you are taking in the totality of the problem of vehicle fires and rationally observing reality. If you see a story about an ICE vehicle fire you think absolutely nothing of it, but an EV fire happens and you rush to post about the dangers of EV fires.

Now imagine that a substantial percentage of people do exactly as you do. What happens? You come away with the impression that EV fires are uniquely common and uniquely likely to cause large fires when there have been at least 3 fires involving dozens of vehicles in the last 3 months in the Dallas area alone.


The point isn't that EV fire concerns aren't valid, it's that you and your like don't even entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe, ICE fires are an even bigger problem because while they may be individually easier to put out, it's harder to put out 30 ICE fires compared to one EV fire and the probability of 30 fires expanding to other vehicles or structures is probably higher than a single hard to extinguish fire.

GAC06 said:

---

Yes, don't hold your breath for me to address your strawman

---

Its true, you can't annihilate what you can't understand. But EV fires can.

There is some good EV news with solid state batteries: 600 mile range with about 9 minutes charging time per Samsung. Might tilt me toward EVs but let's see.
Here's a short video on solid state batteries for those who want to know the advantages (smaller size/lighter, faster charging). Any automotive or electrical engineers or experts please feel free to chime in.