Study Suggests EV Myths Still Fool Many Australians

Numerous EV myths persist and it appears a significant proportion of Australians continue to believe them. But we’re not alone.

As with the ongoing related battle concerning renewables, such as oft-debunked solar panel myths that refuse to die, there’s no shortage of misinformation regarding electric vehicles — and that presents a hurdle to uptake.

A recent good example that springs to mind was a Queensland council’s plans to install public EV charging stations coming to a screeching halt, apparently after the mayor watched a Channel 7 beat-up linking the negative impacts of Indonesian nickel mining to EV battery production without evidence.

But the majority of nickel produced globally is used in the manufacture of stainless steel and other alloys, and not all electric vehicles use nickel in their batteries. Even among those that do, most of the ‘dirty’ nickel coming out of Indonesia is reportedly of a quality not suitable for EV batteries.

Thankfully, some sanity prevailed after backlash from the community and within councillor ranks. But unfortunately the damage was done, with the supplier organised to deliver and operate the EV charging infrastructure backing out after the kerfuffle; in part because of ‘reputational risks’.

Mapping EV Misinformation Beliefs

Researchers from the University of Queensland and Germany’s Trier University and University of Hohenheim set about examining the prevalence of belief in misinformation about EVs.  Surveys across four countries (Germany, Austria, Australia and the USA) involving more than 4,000 respondents revealed an alarming proportion agreed with various misinformation statements presented.

Here’s how the Australian cohort faired on agreeing with nine myths¹:

• Manufacturing process carbon impact outweighs lower emissions: 35.7%
• Electromagnetic fields produced by electric vehicles harms birds: 19.7%
• Associated mining accelerates deforestation, thus increasing CO2: 43.1%
• Electromagnetic fields lead to health issues: 19.7%
• EVs are more likely to catch fire: 47.0%
• Batteries are designed to fail after a set number of charge cycles: 34.8%
• Batteries are deliberately non-upgradeable: 44.2%
• EVs are intentionally complex to prevent DIY repairs: 44.5%
• EV accidents are under-reported by authorities: 26.3%

And the aggregate misinformation measure:

• Germany: 38.2%
• Austria: 37.6%
• Australia: 35.0%
• USA 33.8%

Busting The EV Fire Myth

The fire myth saw the most agreement in each country. But research from EV Fire Safe — a private firm researching EV battery fires and emergency response with the support of  funding from the Australian Department of Defence — indicates a 0.0012% chance of a passenger electric vehicle battery catching fire for any reason. The organisation suggests a 0.1% chance of an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle catching fire; so much more likely.

EV Fire Safe’s estimates were based on global EV battery fires from 2010-2020 — and battery fire prevention technology has improved further since then.

So, Why?

A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on as the saying goes; particularly nowadays. That’s part of the problem, combined with the general disposition of folks falling victim to these myths and any existing yet unconfirmed biases they may have. The crap fills the gap, and can stick like glue.

What the researchers discovered is a ‘conspiracy mentality’ emerged as the strongest predictor of such beliefs, whereas education, scientific knowledge and performance on a cognitive reflection task were non-significant.

“Misinformation agreement was also associated with lower pro-ecological world-view, weaker environmental identity and greater self-identification as conservative, although these explained (in total) less than one-sixth of the variance captured by conspiracy mentality in the model,” they say.

The researchers also tested a couple of interventions for reducing belief in misinformation and increasing EV policy support and purchase intentions. One was a fact sheet and the other getting respondents to converse with ChatGPT on the issues. That was brave given some of the brainfarts ChatGPT can be prone to, but the result:

“Both strategies showed modest effectiveness immediately post-intervention, and positive effects on misinformation beliefs remained significant at a 10-day follow-up.”

The study has been published in the journal Nature Energy and can be viewed here.