My issue with lithium ion cells is the very thin film separating the reacting chemicals, which if it breaks down could lead to fire. I have had two lithium ion camera batteries self destruct, luckily in the camera bag and not the camera. A vehicle battery is much more exposed to the risk of catastrophic damage.
With petrol or diesel there is half a millimetre or so of terne plate separating the fuel from its oxidising agent.
It would be interesting to see statistics comparing fires in electric and conventional vehicles.

STC830 maybe a little off topic but service stations country wide ban the use of mobile phones at the bowsers and on the courtyard. Most people think this is over the top but I know of two instances here in the ACT at servos I have worked at where mobile phones have infact caused fires. I'm now beginning to think this goes further because of the batteries instability.
You have to remember there is upto 100,000 litres of fuel in storage at any given time.

The risk from mobile phones at service stations must be mitigated now since the average punter cannot now take the battery out of his mobile. But it could still get run over if dropped.

Ultimately my reservations would not stop me buying an electric car if the price dropped to a level where the lifetime cost was low enough. Just for tootling down to the supermarket or to Jaycar/Altronics it would be hard to beat. Keep a petrol car for the long distance trips.

STC830 no the use of mobile phones at servos is not mitigated because of the battery not being changed by the owner. One of the main problems is the actual screen plus of cause when customers are on their mobile phones they generally are not fully aware of whats going on around them. Yes it was the screen that caused a fire here in the ACT. The guy had a leaking tank and was using his phone as a light under the car to see what was going on . A big no no! You can't even use blutooth.
Also when attendants have to check the main tank levels we can only use a certain type of torch which is called a intrinsically safe torch for the job. You get caught using a normal torch you lose your job.

OK, keep it strictly in your pocket.

The issue of RF from mobile phones causing fires has been well and truly debunked.

What is far more likely to ignite fuel vapour is the vibrator motor in the phone, from sparking on the brushes.

Ian it was never RF causing fires but there were instances of interference with a vehicles computers and the car driving off but that was rare.

I was at one point the Night shift supervisor in a chemical factory where we had some interesting stuff. All the forklifts were flame proof. none were electric only one had flame proof lighting. working area was class one zone one: Everything flame proof.

The sealed electric watch should not be a major issue & many mobile phones that are classed as water proof I wonder about if its got an earplug. I would not trust it unless its classified.

In the real world I know of one MKII Zephyr Ute igniting. It was all related the tank being inside the cabin on the left and so is the filler and the interior light, there is a vapour path if it was leaking, to the door switch.

The other car favourite is static from a person getting back into the car sliding on the seat, developing a static charge & causing the vapour to flash after touching the hose handle.

With filling the tanks on light aircraft (done a bit of that) one always connects the static line to ground as step one in refueling.

The State Electricity Commission of Victoria in the 60's had a explosives shack on the then gravel road leading to their various hydroelectric generator sites. My father sometimes took me along during his work at the power stations.

I noticed a sign outside the explosives shack warning workers that radio transmitters were not to be used within the shack perimeter.
I questioned this and dad explained that under the right conditions RF energy could very well find its way into a detonator, setting of an explosion.

I was amazed and pressed for more info. The subject led dad to talk about when he was a kid cameras were banned near aircraft being refuelled. Apparently the "flash" powder could ignite fumes released during refuelling.

What a great technical education us kids had in those days.

The old flash guns of the thirties & forties looked were an incendiary device and the bulb ones of the 70's were no better. Those were usually a Magnesium wire like steel wool for pots & pans in an atmosphere of oxygen. None of those could be considered in any way flame proof.

I remember those bulbs, if one was directed at you, you could feel the heat flash (infrared). I didn't know they were sealed in oxygen---that would explain the melting confinement area.

What happened to incorporating Super-capacitors (alongside the heavier battery) into EVs? They can charge instantly and recover more energy from braking.

From the SMH today:

QUOTE: Sodium battery technology is best suited to large-scale applications such as power grids and storing renewable energy, and both Khoo and Knott said it’s unlikely to supersede lithium’s use in smaller applications such as cars, phones and airpods.

“I don’t see it as something that’s going to replace lithium, in the same way that lithium hasn’t completely replaced lead acid batteries, for example,” Khoo said. “We’ve got both of them running side by side and certain for certain applications. It’ll be the same case with sodium batteries.”

I noticed a sign outside the explosives shack warning workers that radio transmitters were not to be used within the shack perimeter.

I well recall this common sign around major road works when I was a kid:

Explosives in Use
Switch Off Radio Transmitters