Fires in ev vs ice vehicle per 100000
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Multiple analyses using U.S. and international data put EV fire frequency near 25 fires per 100,000 vehicles sold versus roughly 1,500–1,530 fires per 100,000 for gasoline/ICE cars — a gap often reported as 20–60× lower risk for EVs [1] [2] [3]. Sources also caution that EV fires burn differently, can reignite, and that underlying datasets and definitions vary, limiting direct comparisons [4] [5].
1. Numbers that keep repeating — where they come from
Several widely cited pieces trace the “25 vs ~1,500 per 100,000” figures to government compilations and industry studies: Kelly Blue Book and NTSB/BTS-derived counts are referenced for 25 EV fires per 100,000 sold, and multiple outlets quote about 1,529–1,530 fires per 100,000 for gasoline cars [1] [6] [2]. Industry commentators and secondary analyses then compute ratios — commonly expressed as EVs being 20–61 times less likely to be involved in a fire — using those same base rates [3] [7] [8].
2. Different studies, similar headline — but not identical methods
Although many outlets repeat the same headline numbers, their methods differ. Some derive rates per 100,000 “cars sold” (KBB/NTSB-based reporting), others count fires on the road or per miles driven; some international studies (Sweden) report raw counts and percentages rather than standardized per-100k rates [1] [4] [3]. That variation in denominators — sold vs registered vs miles — matters because it changes the implied exposure and therefore the comparability of the statistics [4].
3. What the data does agree on: EV fires are rarer but not risk‑free
Multiple independent sources converge on the conclusion that EVs are involved in far fewer reported fires than ICE or hybrid vehicles. Reporting across trade press, insurers and safety studies places EV fire counts at the low tens per 100,000 versus mid‑thousands for hybrids or roughly 1.5k for gasoline cars [2] [1] [5]. That consensus appears in U.S. and some European datasets cited by journalists and safety agencies [4] [3].
4. Severity, firefighter challenges and hidden trade‑offs
The story is not only frequency. EV battery fires behave differently: they can be harder to extinguish, burn hotter, and carry a risk of delayed reignition; fire services are updating tactics and equipment as a result [4] [5]. Reports note recommendations such as prolonged cooling or submersion, and that not all departments have those resources — a detail that complicates policymaking and emergency response planning [4].
5. Hybrids complicate the picture
Several analyses single out hybrids as having higher fire rates than both pure ICE and pure EV models, with hybrid figures sometimes reported in the multiple‑thousands per 100,000 sold [2] [1]. That nuance undermines any simple “battery = more fires” narrative and suggests different technologies bring different, specific risks [2].
6. Limits of the available reporting — what’s missing or uncertain
Available sources repeatedly warn about limited historical exposure for EVs, inconsistent definitions of “vehicle fire,” and small sample sizes in early datasets; these caveats mean long‑term projections are uncertain [8] [4] [9]. Sources do not uniformly report peer‑reviewed, harmonized datasets that cover identical years, geographies and denominators; direct apples‑to‑apples comparisons are not present in the cited material [8] [4].
7. How media coverage and perception distort risk
High‑profile EV fire videos generate outsized fear because dramatic visuals travel faster than technical context. Multiple pieces note that media salience can make EV fires seem more common than they are, while ordinary ICE fires receive less attention despite being numerically dominant [3] [8] [10].
8. Practical takeaways for policy and consumers
The available reporting supports prioritizing firefighter training, garage/parking infrastructure adaptations, and clear guidance for owners on post‑fire cooling and charging safety — while recognizing EVs appear less likely to ignite in the first place [3] [4]. Policymakers should treat frequency and severity as separate policy targets: reducing ignition incidents (where ICE still dominates) and ensuring responders can safely suppress and cool battery fires (where EVs pose technical challenges) [4] [5].
Limitations: this analysis relies only on the provided sources; other peer‑reviewed or government datasets beyond those cited may alter these conclusions. Available sources do not mention long‑term trends as EV fleets age beyond the early adoption window [8] [4].