Surprise! Media is misreporting the source of a Dutch cargo ship fire
Early this morning, the Fremantle Highway, a large cargo ship, caught fire in the North Sea, off the coast of Ameland in the Netherlands. The fire has killed one person on board and injured several more, though all 23 crew members have at this point been evacuated from the ship.
The cargo ship was carrying 2,832 gas-powered cars, complete with a large amount of volatile energy stored in their gas tanks, and 25 electric ones, from Germany to Egypt. Naturally, the media seems to have taken one statement from the Dutch Coast Guard and misinterpreted it, jumping to exactly the premature conclusion that you probably did when you saw this headline pop up on our site.
An early article about the cargo ship fire quoted Lea Versteeg, a spokesperson for the Dutch Coast Guard, as having made this statement over the phone:
It’s carrying cars, 2,857, of which 25 are electrical cars, which made the fire even more difficult. It’s not easy to keep that kind of fire under control and even in such a vessel it’s not easy.
We’re not sure who made the phone call, but since it’s in the Associated Press article, we suspect they might be the first who got this statement directly from Versteeg’s mouth.
NOS, the Dutch public broadcaster, cites a “Coast Guard spokesperson” as saying that presumably the fire was started by an EV. But unlike AP, NOS does not name the spokesperson nor does it have a direct quote from said spokesperson. So we really don’t know whether NOS talked to a spokesperson, or is cribbing from the Versteeg quote above – and changing its meaning in the process.
Reuters echoed NOS’s statement in its original article on the fire, but in a more recent article, it has now walked that back, stating “the coastguard said on its website that the cause of the fire was unknown, but a coastguard spokesperson had earlier told Reuters it began near an electric car” (emphasis ours).
But what the Versteeg quote above seems to mean is that in a ship full of vehicles, each of which is carrying their own at least partially full energy storage container (whether that be a gas tank or a battery), it’s going to be hard to put out a fire because there is a lot of fuel available for that fire. Further, given that there is a mix of fuels, it’s hard to pick a single tactic to put all of them out at once, because firefighting methods are different for different types of fires.
What the quote clearly doesn’t mean is that the Coast Guard is blaming this fire on an electric car.
And how do we know that? Well, we called them and asked them. And they told us that, no, they have not made a statement to that effect, because they don’t know the cause of the fire yet, and that this seems to be speculation in the media.
We also checked the Dutch Coast Guard’s liveblog about the firefighting efforts, and their Twitter page, and neither said anything about electric cars. In fact, the liveblog has now been updated to say, “The cause of the fire is still unknown.” And it makes sense that the Coast Guard would not know yet what the source of the fire is, and it would be unprofessional of them to say so, given that the fire isn’t even contained yet.
So we must conclude that this is being misreported. An official statement in writing says the cause is unknown. There is nothing from officials in writing mentioning the speculation about electric cars. We don’t have a direct quote, and we don’t have a name for the spokesman who said it. The misreported information seems like it could have come from a misinterpretation of a direct quote that we do know of, and at least one of the sources has now walked it back. It was confirmed to us over the phone that the Coast Guard has not come to this conclusion and that this is all media speculation.
One thing we do know is that cargo ship fires are not uncommon, with hundreds happening last year. We also know that another cargo ship carrying ~1,200 gas cars (and zero electric) caught fire earlier this month in New Jersey, killing two. And we know that gasoline is literally supposed to combust, that’s its entire purpose, and it does, commonly, since gas cars are several times more likely to catch fire than EVs are.
And yet, you probably have a strong association in your subconscious between fires and electric cars.
This association is why events like the aforementioned reporting on the 1,200-car ship had to specifically mention that “there were no electric cars on board.” Because the last time a ship made headlines for burning, it was one that had a lot of electric cars on board (and notably also several gas-powered Lamborghini Aventadors, which have been recalled for fires). And despite burning ships being a not-uncommon event, this one made so many headlines precisely because of the nature of the electric cars on board.
That event also had several early reports laying blame on said electric cars, but that was also early speculation, by media, never by official authorities, and the cause of that fire is still unclear to this day. But the association remains.
There is a concept in journalism that is summarized as “Man Bites Dog.” The saying goes that you would never report on a dog biting a man, because that’s a common occurrence, but if a man bites a dog, well, that’s interesting and rare, so that belongs in the paper.
What this means is that news tends to magnify rare events, and de-emphasize common ones. And in our media-saturated landscape, where everyone is constantly being bombarded by headlines that they don’t have the time or inclination to analyze (thank you to the ~.1% of people who saw the headline and actually clicked and read through to this sentence), this leads people to have a warped view of the commonality of certain events.
Unfortunately, in writing this article, we have become part of the problem. By posting about fires in an electric vehicle publication, we have created an association in the minds of anyone who sees this headline between electric cars and fires.
Which is why persistent associations like these are so hard to shake. Even the debunking itself can reinforce the association, through a concept known as the “backfire effect.”
Unfortunately, there is no single magic bullet to combat this. What we can do is encourage people to be critical but not cynical about the information you read, check several sources (that preferably do not look like they’re all cribbing from the same single statement), try to avoid sources that are clearly tabloids or have a clear ideological bias (e.g., Daily Mail, a climate denying publication, which wrongly put EVs in its headline on this story), and try to maintain perspective, especially when encountering purported problems with new technologies. (That is, if people bring up a problem with something new, does that problem also exist with the old thing it’s replacing? Have you merely accepted the devil you know, and are afraid of the devil you don’t know?)
And that goes double for journalists. This is your job, that phone call took all of a minute of my time to clear that up. The tweet was another couple minutes to find because I had to search in Dutch. The liveblog was a few minutes because it’s slammed with more traffic than the Dutch Coast Guard usually has to deal with.
None of this took longer than the amount of time it takes to write an article… but it did take longer than it takes to react with a 140-character quip via tweet. And thus, the lie travels halfway around the world while truth is still putting on its shoes.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
![Hyundai's small new EV has a wild aero hatch design and ducktail spoiler [Image]](https://i0.wp.com/electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2025/12/Hyundai-small-EV-design.jpeg?resize=1200,628&quality=82&strip=all&ssl=1)
The IONIQ 3 is set to arrive as a smaller sibling to the IONIQ 5, but it will look a little different from other Hyundai EVs.
The Hyundai IONIQ 3 will debut a new EV design
Hyundai previewed the new electric hatchback, dubbed the Concept Three, at the Munich Motor Show in September.
The “Three” is Hyundai’s first compact electric vehicle concept under the IONIQ series, set to bring a radical new design to the family.
According to Hyundai, the Concept Three “represents the next step in the company’s electrification journey.” Production is expected to begin in early 2026 at Hyundai’s manufacturing plant in Turkey, with deliveries starting shortly thereafter.
The new design, “Art of Steel,” is inspired by Hyundai’s advanced steel technology. Hyundai calls the Aero Hatch profile “a new typology that reimagines the compact EV silhouette.”
Hyundai kept a few of its signature design elements from other IONIQ EV models, like the Parametric Pixel lights at the front and rear.
With its official debut approaching, a few IONIQ 3 prototypes have been spotted driving in public in South Korea. Despite heavy camouflage, you could tell the production version was shaping up to be nearly identical to the Concept Three.
A new image from KindelAuto offers a closer look at the IONIQ 3, spotted in Europe with barely any camouflage.
You can clearly see the vehicle’s profile stays close to the concept, with a sleek, hot-hatch design and a ducktail spoiler.
The compact EV is 4,287 mm long, 1,940 mm wide, and 1,428 mm tall, with a wheelbase of 2,722 mm, or about the size of the Kia EV3 or Volkswagen ID.3.
Hyundai has yet to reveal battery specs or prices, but it’s expected to offer 58.3 kWh and 81.4 kWh battery packs, like the Kia EV3, providing a WLTP range of around 365 miles. Given the Kona Electric starts at £35,000 ($47,000), the IONIQ 3 will likely be priced closer to £25,000 ($33,700).
For those in the US, sadly, the IONIQ 3 is not expected to make the trip overseas, given America’s growing love for bigger trucks and SUVs.
The IONIQ 5 does, however, remain one of the most affordable EVs in the US, starting at under $35,000 with leases as low as $189 per month.
If you’re considering an EV, Hyundai’s lineup is absolutely worth checking out — offering over 300 miles of range, fast charging, modern tech, at a price that’s actually reasonable. Check out the links below to see what’s available by you.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk went on a podcast this week to express regret over the time he spent trying to destroy the American government, claiming that he wouldn’t do it again.
In the first half of this year, Musk took a position advising convicted felon Donald Trump (who cannot legally hold office in the US) on what essential government jobs to trim.
He named the group he led the “Department of Government Efficiency,” despite that it was never an actual government department, nor did it do a whole lot to increase efficiency as we will see below.
Musk claimed before taking the position that he could save the government $2 trillion – which was always going to be literally impossible, given the amount of discretionary spending in the US budget, as anyone with a passing interest in American government could have told you at the time.
Unsurprisingly, Musk was unable to succeed in the impossible cuts he had proposed. After less than half a year (incidentally, not far off from the 130-day cap for unofficial advisory positions), Musk left the position amid a fiery breakup with Mr. Trump. The breakup led to a big drop in Tesla stock, which had been inflated due to expectations of corruption.
All in all, Musk claims that he cut around $200 billion from the government’s budget, but actual analyses show that those numbers were fake and in fact that his actions likely increased the budget deficit, rather than decreasing it. This is due to the disruption in necessary government services, higher costs for employee severance, and lost revenue for the government as ultra-wealthy tax cheats will be able to get off without paying their fair share.
And, in the interim, republicans passed a law that gives away $4 trillion to those same wealthy elites, adding $3.3 trillion to the deficit. That number is 16 times larger than even the inflated $200 billion “savings” number Musk claims.
How Musk’s actions harmed Tesla, not just the US
But Musk’s actions cosplaying as a government official had other effects than his failure to effectively cut waste: they turned public opinion against his companies, mainly Tesla.
Over the last couple years, Musk has increasingly tried to involve himself in politics, both in the US and abroad. His politics have largely focused on pushing white supremacist nonsense including support for German neo-Nazis and agreeing with a defense of Hitler, and funding and supporting groups that oppose renewable energy and vehicle electrification. He’s even rhetorically got into climate change denial himself.
These actions have directly harmed Tesla through loss of expected revenue, and have also reduced the brand’s profile in the public eye. Tesla is now the only EV brand with negative perception, and it’s due to Musk himself. His actions have driven protests against the company, embarrassed owners and pushed many customers away – including business customers.
As a result, Tesla’s sales have been falling both in the US and around the globe in a rising EV market. All told, one study found that he cost Tesla over 1 million sales in the US alone with his braindead political takes. Even his own company had to chide him.
It wasn’t hard to see this coming
These results were eminently foreseeable – anyone can tell you that business leaders typically should remain neutral on politics as a rule, and generally only speak on issues that directly involve their company or industry.
Wading into wedge issues and identity politics as a business leader can only serve to turn off customers, and since negative motivations are generally stronger than positive ones, you will net lose sales even if you appeal to some portion of the population with your advocacy.
And if you do advocate for something, it should probably be for something that will help your companies, rather than hurt them.
But Elon Musk is different. Unlike most business leaders, he has millions of useful idiots at his beck and call on twitter at any time (and it is indeed where he spends all of his time), ready and willing to tell him that all of his ideas are genius, no matter how braindead they are, or how recycled they are from his rage-filled feed which seems to be his only source of information these days. Why should conventional wisdom apply to someone who is constantly told conventional wisdom doesn’t apply to him?
And so, he ignored – or rather, probably didn’t even see, given the echo chamber he has formed around himself – the conventional wisdom telling him what a bad idea all of this was. And now, years later, he’s finally showing the slightest moment of lucidity that perhaps all of the above was not a great use of time.
Musk finally recognizes what we’ve been telling him all along
This week, Musk went on a podcast (hosted by Katie Miller, wife of American white supremacist Stephen Miller) and claimed that his advisory board was “a little bit successful. We were somewhat successful,” which is a rather middling assessment given his big initial claims of being able to save the government trillions of dollars.
But further, he went on to say that he wouldn’t do it all over again, and that “instead of doing DOGE, I would have, basically, built … worked on my companies.”
He said that if he had done that instead, “they wouldn’t have been burning the cars.” This is a reference to Tesla protests, which have largely not included burning anything, but which have been widespread globally.
We, of course, agree that that would have been a better course of action. Which is why we said it at the time. Perhaps it’s time to get off twitter and read some real thoughts for once, Mr. Musk. We’re not sure if the damage you’ve done is repairable (though it was certainly preventable), but as they say, “garbage in, garbage out” – the more nonsense you read, the more nonsense you’ll continue to get up to.
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
BMW is the latest major automaker to officially gain access to the Tesla Supercharger network in North America. Starting today, BMW EV drivers in the US can access over 25,000 Tesla Superchargers, adding a massive boost to the charging options for owners of the i4, iX, and other electric models from the German automaker.
It follows a wave of other automakers gaining access over the last year as the industry transitions to NACS (North American Charging Standard), Tesla’s proprietary connector that has now become the standard.
BMW confirmed today that the update is effective immediately. Owners can find Tesla Superchargers directly in their vehicle’s navigation system and the My BMW app.
However, like most other automakers making this transition, there is hardware involved. Current BMW EVs, which are equipped with CCS ports, will require a CCS-to-NACS adapter to use the vast majority of Tesla’s V3 and V4 Superchargers.
According to BMW, official adapters will go on sale as accessories starting in Q2 2026. That is a bit of a wait, but in the meantime, some third-party adapters are already on the market.
For those lucky enough to live near one of Tesla’s few “Magic Dock” locations (Superchargers with a built-in CCS adapter), any BMW EV can charge immediately without needing to buy extra hardware.
BMW also clarified its timeline for native NACS ports, which will eliminate the need for an adapter entirely. The transition begins with the 2026 BMW i5 M60, followed by other models throughout the year, including the highly anticipated Neue Klasse iX3, which is expected to be a competitor of the higher-end trims of Tesla’s popular Model Y.
Interestingly, there is a software hurdle for some specific 2026 models. BMW noted that the 2026 iX and i5 eDrive40 will not be able to use Tesla Superchargers until they receive a remote software upgrade, also scheduled for Q2 2026.
One of the biggest pain points for non-Tesla EVs using the Supercharger network has been the user experience. Tesla has set a high bar with its “plug and play” ecosystem.
BMW seems to have done a good job integrating this. The automaker says that its Plug & Charge is supported at Tesla stations. You won’t need the Tesla app to start a session. Instead, billing is handled through the customer’s Shell Recharge account, which is integrated into the My BMW app.
Pricing will follow Tesla’s standard rate structure for non-Tesla vehicles, which is generally higher than what Tesla owners pay unless you pay a monthly membership fee.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024