Author Topic: Out-of-control EV blaze (thermal runaway) threatens to sink massive RORO ship.  (Read 13111 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7336
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
BBC News - Ameland rescue: Crew jump off ship ablaze with cargo of 3,000 cars
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66310280

Yesterday it was reported by the coastguard the fire was believed to have started with an electric car. But reading the article now that has been watered down. So the YT chap was just a bit quick to jump on the EV cars are bad band wagon for some views.

From what i understood, there are like 25 BEVs on that ship. Alongside around 2000 ICE cars.
Sure, a battery might have started the fire. And they surely are burning now. But can they really still be a major contributing factor to the fire as a whole?

From what i heard this morning on the radio, the temperatures on the ship are decreasing and there are no visible flames anymore.
No. There where nearly 500 BEVs on the ship (out of 3800 cars in total) and according to the news (probably based on a statement made by a crew member / report from the captain to the coast guard), one of these cars caught fire.

All the coastguard said is that the ship had EVs on it, and that made the fire more difficult to fight... which is definitely true... it seems to have been interpreted by someone in the press that statement mean the fire was started by an EV and unless there is CCTV or eyewitness as to what car caused it (if indeed a car was the source, could have been anything on the ship) we may not know, especially if the ship sinks.

Where do you get the 500 BEVs from?  The coastguard and owner both said 25.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2023, 09:05:49 am by tom66 »
 

Offline Ranayna

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 986
  • Country: de
From what i understood, there are like 25 BEVs on that ship. Alongside around 2000 ICE cars.
Sure, a battery might have started the fire. And they surely are burning now. But can they really still be a major contributing factor to the fire as a whole?

From what i heard this morning on the radio, the temperatures on the ship are decreasing and there are no visible flames anymore.
No. There where nearly 500 BEVs on the ship (out of 3800 cars in total) and according to the news (probably based on a statement made by a crew member / report from the captain to the coast guard), one of these cars caught fire.
Do you have a source for 500 BEVs? I can only find a couple of german sources stating 3783 (i misremembered the 2000 number) cars in total, and 25 being BEVs.
 

Offline gnuarm

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2247
  • Country: pr
I happen to live close to where the ship is on fire. I didn't watch the YT but the EV story was in almost all news reports about this, so maybe one of the crew members of the ship had some information where the fire started?

I like that you are speculating about the speculation.  Read up on the parking garage fire at Stavanger Airport.  All of those initial reports claimed it was started by an EV, only to be corrected the next day.  Did the initial reports change their wording?  No.


Quote
Time will tell. The problem they are facing is that they can't continue putting water on the fire because the ship will get instable and could tip over and sink, which is not what we want in these waters, so they only cool down the ship on the outside. Latest reports are that the situation is getting better slowly, no more visible flames, so they are waiting for the ship to cool down enough to be boarded and towed away.

Good.  Maybe they can get to the bottom of this, and we can stop speculating?  Nah, not going to happen.  That's what people like to do, speculate on things they don't know about.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2023, 09:13:03 am by gnuarm »
Rick C.  --  Puerto Rico is not a country... It's part of the USA
  - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
  - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 

Offline gnuarm

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2247
  • Country: pr
BBC News - Ameland rescue: Crew jump off ship ablaze with cargo of 3,000 cars
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66310280

Yesterday it was reported by the coastguard the fire was believed to have started with an electric car. But reading the article now that has been watered down. So the YT chap was just a bit quick to jump on the EV cars are bad band wagon for some views.
But still, despite the actual cause of the fire, when EVs are involved the fire is extremely hard to put out (*).

False information.  No tanks of water are required.  That is an overreaction.


Quote
On a ship it is next to impossible.

Simple nonsense.  Ships are immense.   The water required to extinguish an EV fire is nothing compared to the normal leakage and other causes of water on board.


Quote
The ship currently on fire isn't the first ship with cars that has caught fire and they can't put the fire out. It may take weeks until the fire stops by itself. If you pump more water into the ship, it may sink leading to an even bigger environmental catastrophy. If ships with cars catching fire and sinking / total loss as a result where common, we wouldn't be reading it in the news. So there is a problem with transporting EVs on ships.

Wow!  A ship catches fire and can't be put out.  So, let's blame EVs, somehow.

Are you actually an engineer of any sort?


[/quote]* The Dutch fire brigade has special trucks with water bins in which they submerge an EV to put the fire out as just sprinkling water over the car doesn't help.
[/quote]

"Sprinkling water" is not terribly effective.  Dunking the EV in a tank of water is not required.  Your Dutch fire brigades are being rather reactionary.  Not the first time someone has done this.
Rick C.  --  Puerto Rico is not a country... It's part of the USA
  - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
  - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 

Offline gnuarm

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2247
  • Country: pr
Feel free to do the research yourself if you don't believe any of the forum members here. We are just discussing it for fun. If you are in charge of drafting up new standards on how to handle burning EVs or something then you should be using more reliable sources than this forum anyway.

Precisely!  This thread is just chewing the fat and has little interest in learning the facts of EV fires.  Here's one.  ICE cars are three times more likely to catch fire as EVs.  Well, in the US, according to government numbers.


Quote
Firefighters do have special protocols for things that involve electricity like EVs or solar panel arrays. How real the shock hazard is i don't know, hence why i said "in theory", just that nobody wants to be held accountable for someone getting shocked to death so they are careful with it anyway and put protocols in place.

"In theory" is code for, "I don't really know anything about this, but here's my favorite take". 


Quote
Not saying that internal combustion cars don't burn, or that they are easy to extinguish if they do catch fire. Just that large lithium battery packs present a unique extra challenge in putting the fire out.

By "unique" you mean not needing foam?  You mean not spreading around on top of water, getting into sewers and running to any buildings nearby?

I just wish people would stop believing every stupid report they read.  Try learning some facts.  Real facts, not alternative facts.


Quote
Those batteries contain a lot of energy and once damaged they don't need oxygen or heat to release it (also in the process likely damage cells next to it causing those to fail too). Unlike burning gasoline or diesel or plastics that stop burning once deprived of heat or oxygen.

LOL!!!  You make it sound easy to put out gasoline fires.  A gas tank contains four times the energy of a fully charged battery for a full sized EV.  FOUR TIMES!!!


Quote
The EVs catching fires is a thing that the media loves to focus on and write about, while they won't even report on a internal combustion car catching fire (unless there is something else in the news story to write about). None of the cars (EV or ICE) spontaneously catch fire often enough for people to be worried about there own car catching fire, sure it happens but it is a few known cases among the many many many cars out there.

Indeed! 

I remember a gasoline fire on the DC beltway.  A gas truck got pushed over onto a guardrail, which it then could not get off of and ran into a bridge abutment.  The whole thing went up in flames killing a number of people, including one person who was able to walk out of the flames, but in his disorientation, walked back into into the fire and was burned to death.

I'm happy with my EV.  Once enough of them are on the roads, we won't be carrying loads of hundreds of gallons of liquid death on our highways so much. 
Rick C.  --  Puerto Rico is not a country... It's part of the USA
  - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
  - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 

Offline gnuarm

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2247
  • Country: pr
From what i understood, there are like 25 BEVs on that ship. Alongside around 2000 ICE cars.
Sure, a battery might have started the fire. And they surely are burning now. But can they really still be a major contributing factor to the fire as a whole?

From what i heard this morning on the radio, the temperatures on the ship are decreasing and there are no visible flames anymore.
No. There where nearly 500 BEVs on the ship (out of 3800 cars in total) and according to the news (probably based on a statement made by a crew member / report from the captain to the coast guard), one of these cars caught fire.

Every report I've seen says "2,857 cars, including 25 electric cars".

https://apnews.com/article/cargo-ship-fire-netherlands-environment-sea-ca213ea320ba2c664d12e960c52331ee

"Electric cars" often includes hybrids which also carry gasoline.
Rick C.  --  Puerto Rico is not a country... It's part of the USA
  - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
  - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 

Online Berni

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5050
  • Country: si
It is different trying to put out a whole tanker truck full of gasoline versus the amount of gasoline in the typical passenger car.

We actually had a fire in a tunnel recently caused by a truck crash:
https://twitter.com/DARS_SI/status/1673277495548821508
Even diesel (usually regarded as much more difficult to set alight) makes quite the violent fire ball if a truck plows into a large tank of it.

If you had a lithium battery that holds the equivalent of 700 liters of diesel that trucks carry the results would be rather spectacular as well.


"In theory" is code for, "I don't really know anything about this, but here's my favorite take". 

Well in what way is someone supposed to refer to it then? I don't want to pass off assumptions as facts.

I am not a fireman, nor have i done any tests to confirm pouring water on a battery might electrocute you. All i know is that firefighters and first responders DO have protocols in place for dealing with EVs and large batteries. So they agree that special care is required to avoid electrocution, otherwise they would use the same protocol as for internal combustion cars. If you want detailed reasons for why they do that go ask a fireman, all i know is that they do it.

For example look at how they handled the giant stationary battery that caught fire in Austrialia. They didn't even dare enter the fence, so all they did was spray water over the fence onto the surrounding battery banks so that they would not catch fire while they wait for the damaged bank to burn itself out.
 

Offline gnuarm

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2247
  • Country: pr
It is different trying to put out a whole tanker truck full of gasoline versus the amount of gasoline in the typical passenger car.

We actually had a fire in a tunnel recently caused by a truck crash:
https://twitter.com/DARS_SI/status/1673277495548821508
"In theory" is code for, "I don't really know anything about this, but here's my favorite take". 

Well in what way is someone supposed to refer to it then? I don't want to pass off assumptions as facts.

Then say, "My assumption is".  You just said that's what it is.  So, say that!  It's nothing about "theory".  It's your assumption.


Quote
I am not a fireman, nor have i done any tests to confirm pouring water on a battery might electrocute you. All i know is that firefighters and first responders DO have protocols in place for dealing with EVs and large batteries.

Which means what??? 

I'll give you a hint.  What would be the circuit that would electrocute you?  Where exactly is the current flowing?


Quote
So they agree that special care is required to avoid electrocution, otherwise they would use the same protocol as for internal combustion cars. If you want detailed reasons for why they do that go ask a fireman, all i know is that they do it.

No, ICE require a special "protocol" because gas fires are hard to put out.  I don't know where you are, but in the US, we have labels on fire extinguishers that have letters to indicate the type of fires they are good for.   Type B extinguishers are for gasoline and other flammable liquid fires.  Type C extinguishers, generally are used on electrical fires.  What do your sources say is appropriate for EVs?


Quote
For example look at how they handled the giant stationary battery that caught fire in Austrialia. They didn't even dare enter the fence, so all they did was spray water over the fence onto the surrounding battery banks so that they would not catch fire while they wait for the damaged bank to burn itself out.

What does that have to do with EV fires?  Do we need to build fences around EVs and put the fire out from outside the fence?  What are you saying?

This gets old after a while.  It's as if people are not able to think logically.
Rick C.  --  Puerto Rico is not a country... It's part of the USA
  - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
  - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 

Offline Jeroen3

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4209
  • Country: nl
  • Embedded Engineer
    • jeroen3.nl
https://nos.nl/artikel/2484547-veel-meer-elektrische-auto-s-aan-boord-van-brandend-schip-dan-gedacht-498

498 ev's, the company apparently released a statement to stop speculations. I can't find it.

Some sites report there was also a dutch pilot and german surveyor on board. Surveyors are often on board when tests are being performed.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2023, 10:42:24 am by Jeroen3 »
 
The following users thanked this post: tom66

Offline gnuarm

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2247
  • Country: pr
https://nos.nl/artikel/2484547-veel-meer-elektrische-auto-s-aan-boord-van-brandend-schip-dan-gedacht-498

498 ev's, the company apparently released a statement to stop speculations. I can't find it.

Even so, it's not relevant, since there is no indication the EVs were responsible for the fire, or that they are making anything difficult for extinguishing it.  There's still many more ICE cars, all potential fireballs and hard to put out. 
Rick C.  --  Puerto Rico is not a country... It's part of the USA
  - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
  - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 

Offline Jeroen3

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4209
  • Country: nl
  • Embedded Engineer
    • jeroen3.nl
Yes, I doubt the cargo is the cause, even as many news outlets report the EV as cause. I don't believe that. They would have to spontaneously combust.
Since I have not seen reports of this on other places, like car transportation parking fires I highly doubt the cargo is the cause.
 

Offline JPortici

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3573
  • Country: it
YouTube thumbnail-face is strong with this one.

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about.

if you don't make soy faces on thumbnails the algorythm will crush you

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about, "thumbnail-face" or "soy faces".   I have to assume you are making some sort of joke.  I'm not laughing.

if you click that link you'll see what we mean about "soy faces". You will certainly see the resemblance on the expression of the youtuber in the thumbnail. It came out in the past few months that videos that didn't show people with these expressions on their faces in the thumbnails would be heavily penalized by the youtube algorythms. Not a joke, very annoying
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7336
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Electric vehicles have caught fire whilst charging and driving.  One of the most famous ones is the Tesla that burned down at the supercharger, that was ultimately put down to Tesla techs not correctly bolting the pack charge connectors after changing the charge port.  Like any high energy storage medium there is a risk of things going wrong.

However, when in transit like this, the vehicle pack is isolated by pulling the fireman's loop, it is kept at low state of charge (10% is typical) and it will obviously not be charging or driving.  So the risk of combustion is really minimal, it would have to be a spontaneous cell failure or water leaking into the pack from a manufacturing defect. 

It is amazing how politicised EVs have become, if you read the news it'd seem like this is the next environmental catastrophe, a boat with some cars on fire, yet in relative terms the Deepwater Horizon spill is still being cleaned up and cost BP some $65 billion dollars in compensation. Some areas will never again be viable for fishing because the fish are not considered safe for at least 100 years.

edit: spelling
« Last Edit: July 28, 2023, 11:00:42 am by tom66 »
 

Online Berni

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5050
  • Country: si

Which means what??? 

I'll give you a hint.  What would be the circuit that would electrocute you?  Where exactly is the current flowing?


Quote
So they agree that special care is required to avoid electrocution, otherwise they would use the same protocol as for internal combustion cars. If you want detailed reasons for why they do that go ask a fireman, all i know is that they do it.

No, ICE require a special "protocol" because gas fires are hard to put out.  I don't know where you are, but in the US, we have labels on fire extinguishers that have letters to indicate the type of fires they are good for.   Type B extinguishers are for gasoline and other flammable liquid fires.  Type C extinguishers, generally are used on electrical fires.  What do your sources say is appropriate for EVs?

Here you go:
https://www.nfpa.org/Training-and-Events/By-topic/Alternative-Fuel-Vehicle-Safety-Training/Emergency-Response-Guides

Read up on the specific car you are interested in putting the fire out on.

For example here are the instructions for putting out a battery on fire in a Tesla Model S. It calls for dousing the battery with a huge amount of water (3000 to 8000 galons). It specifically calls for always using insulated tools and other chapters talk about the areas that you are not allowed to touch, cut, puncture etc.. due to involving high voltage.

I know it is very unlikely you would actually get electrocuted by it, but i didn't write these documents, go complain to Tesla and other EV manufacturers to revise the document to be to your liking.

This is many times more water than is typically used to put out a typical car fire. Besides even in an internal combustion car the fuel is only one of the flammable things. There is even more chemical energy stored in all the other parts of a car. Both EV and ICE cars also have oil, brake fluid, plastic body panels, plastic interior panels, rubber seals, rubber tires, fabric on seats, foam inside seats...etc all of it burns really well once it starts going.
 

Offline gnuarm

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2247
  • Country: pr

Which means what??? 

I'll give you a hint.  What would be the circuit that would electrocute you?  Where exactly is the current flowing?


Quote
So they agree that special care is required to avoid electrocution, otherwise they would use the same protocol as for internal combustion cars. If you want detailed reasons for why they do that go ask a fireman, all i know is that they do it.

No, ICE require a special "protocol" because gas fires are hard to put out.  I don't know where you are, but in the US, we have labels on fire extinguishers that have letters to indicate the type of fires they are good for.   Type B extinguishers are for gasoline and other flammable liquid fires.  Type C extinguishers, generally are used on electrical fires.  What do your sources say is appropriate for EVs?

Here you go:
https://www.nfpa.org/Training-and-Events/By-topic/Alternative-Fuel-Vehicle-Safety-Training/Emergency-Response-Guides

Read up on the specific car you are interested in putting the fire out on.

For example here are the instructions for putting out a battery on fire in a Tesla Model S. It calls for dousing the battery with a huge amount of water (3000 to 8000 galons). It specifically calls for always using insulated tools and other chapters talk about the areas that you are not allowed to touch, cut, puncture etc.. due to involving high voltage.

I know it is very unlikely you would actually get electrocuted by it, but i didn't write these documents, go complain to Tesla and other EV manufacturers to revise the document to be to your liking.

This is many times more water than is typically used to put out a typical car fire. Besides even in an internal combustion car the fuel is only one of the flammable things. There is even more chemical energy stored in all the other parts of a car. Both EV and ICE cars also have oil, brake fluid, plastic body panels, plastic interior panels, rubber seals, rubber tires, fabric on seats, foam inside seats...etc all of it burns really well once it starts going.

I'm not sure of the point of your post.  You continue to make false statements like comparing the water used to fight an EV fire to the water used to fight an ICE fire, when water is not recommended for an ICE fire when gasoline is involved. 

Where are the equivalent guides for ICE vehicles.  I can't seem to find them.

So, what are you trying to say?
« Last Edit: July 28, 2023, 11:53:46 am by gnuarm »
Rick C.  --  Puerto Rico is not a country... It's part of the USA
  - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
  - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 

Online Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9336
  • Country: fi
False information.  No tanks of water are required.  That is an overreaction.

It's typical extrapolation from facts: some fire brigades (not only in the Netherlands, but all around the world) have started testing/evaluating dipping the whole car in a container full of water. It sounds dramatic but it's actually simple: such containers are simple and plentiful, can be easily transported around using existing infrastructure, water is cheap and plentiful, and dipping the whole car simply removes the need of the "garden hose" man as you described it. It's an obvious idea, so it's obviously being used.

Now, is this needed? Of course not, it's nctnico's interpretation not backed up by any source or any sensible reasoning. Quite the opposite, if such measures were the only way to stop EV fires, we would be all doomed because these fires happen and in most cases there is no such container available. It's also worth noting Tesla specifically advises against it, this would be pretty weird if it was "necessary".
« Last Edit: July 28, 2023, 12:11:04 pm by Siwastaja »
 

Online Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9336
  • Country: fi
Where are the equivalent guides for ICE vehicles.  I can't seem to find them.

Here's something: https://www.firerescue1.com/fire-products/personal-protective-equipment-ppe/articles/firefighter-safety-reminder-car-fires-are-class-b-fires-aHIOlyst4ZAmA2Z6/

>The responding crew got caught in the flash reignition of the liquids, but thankfully, they were protected by their PPE.
The same dreaded reignition, but orders of magnitude faster and thus more dangerous.

>third-degree inhalation burns to the throat, trachea, possibly lungs. Facial burns around the mouth and nose area
>third-degree burns to the scalp, neck, eyes and face.
>third-degree burns to the hands and wrists.
>the gear, when exposed to the extreme high-heat temperatures, starts to off-gas.
> a simple fuel spill fire is enough to push the gear to those limits
>be mindful of what is flowing out from the vehicle and where you are standing in relation to it, and then start extinguishment from a distance before moving closer.

Sounds all pretty nasty.
 

Offline Ranayna

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 986
  • Country: de
https://nos.nl/artikel/2484547-veel-meer-elektrische-auto-s-aan-boord-van-brandend-schip-dan-gedacht-498

498 ev's, the company apparently released a statement to stop speculations. I can't find it.

Some sites report there was also a dutch pilot and german surveyor on board. Surveyors are often on board when tests are being performed.
Interesting, i still can't find anything in german except the number 25.

I do not know enough to know if it ultimately matters though. Once the ship is burning, it's burning.
I can't imagine that BEV or ICE makes much of a difference in this case, since that is not the reason for the difficulties with extinguishing this particular fire.
 

Online Berni

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5050
  • Country: si

I'm not sure of the point of your post.  You continue to make false statements like comparing the water used to fight an EV fire to the water used to fight an ICE fire, when water is not recommended for an ICE fire when gasoline is involved. 

Where are the equivalent guides for ICE vehicles.  I can't seem to find them.

So, what are you trying to say?

Here you go a guideline for ICE vehicles that touches on the exact issue of cars involving flammable liquids:
https://www.firerescue1.com/fire-products/personal-protective-equipment-ppe/articles/firefighter-safety-reminder-car-fires-are-class-b-fires-aHIOlyst4ZAmA2Z6/

The article says that water is appropriate while foam is recommended. However this is for actual firefighters that know the dangers of using water on a flammable liquid and have protective equipment to save them from the situation you see in the video.

For the average joe without appropriate training and wearing no protective equipment you are definitely NOT supposed to use water in this situation.

Context is important. If you think firefighters should not use water, go explain that to them.

EDIT: Keep in mind that even when using foam, the same can still happen, it is just less likely.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2023, 12:30:11 pm by Berni »
 

Offline Jeroen3

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4209
  • Country: nl
  • Embedded Engineer
    • jeroen3.nl
[...]
It is amazing how politicised EVs have become, if you read the news it'd seem like this is the next environmental catastrophe, a boat with some cars on fire, yet in relative terms the Deepwater Horizon spill is still being cleaned up and cost BP some $65 billion dollars in compensation. Some areas will never again be viable for fishing because the fish are not considered safe for at least 100 years.
Yes, remember this?: At least two dead in oil platform fire in Gulf of Mexico? Problably not, it was only 3 weeks ago!

The dipping of the car in a container with water is only to transport the extinguished car to a yard where it will stay for weeks to prevent re-ignition.
Then it will be scrapped. The electrolyte is pyrophoric, this means it can reignite in air.
I have seed some video's of fire trucks with a special skid plate they can shove under a car and pump water through to cool the battery.
Like this: https://www.toxicsuppression.com/ev-utility-nozzle
 

Offline tszaboo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8218
  • Country: nl
  • Current job: ATEX product design
Yes, I doubt the cargo is the cause, even as many news outlets report the EV as cause. I don't believe that. They would have to spontaneously combust.
Since I have not seen reports of this on other places, like car transportation parking fires I highly doubt the cargo is the cause.
Bathtub curve for failures would indicate that new cars are likely to fail fast if there is something wrong with them after assembly.
I am kinda familiar with the shipping of Lithium batteries. They cannot be shipped more than 30% charged. Cannot go on plane. Has to be marked with danger label outside the box. When I saw the shipment of large size lithium cells, they came in a wooden box, that was filled up with something very much resembling asbestos, had to be opened in a closed and then cleaned environment, wear PPE, gloves and mask of course.
Now, is this needed? Of course not, it's nctnico's interpretation not backed up by any source or any sensible reasoning. Quite the opposite, if such measures were the only way to stop EV fires, we would be all doomed because these fires happen and in most cases there is no such container available. It's also worth noting Tesla specifically advises against it, this would be pretty weird if it was "necessary".
We are not doomed, but everyone buying cars now of these "Gen 1" electric cars is going to have a bad time in the future when solid state batteries come out. I really think at some point regular lithium is going to get banned, then you cannot drive into parking garages or city centers with their flashy tesla.
 

Offline gnuarm

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2247
  • Country: pr
False information.  No tanks of water are required.  That is an overreaction.

It's typical extrapolation from facts: some fire brigades (not only in the Netherlands, but all around the world) have started testing/evaluating dipping the whole car in a container full of water. It sounds dramatic but it's actually simple: such containers are simple and plentiful, can be easily transported around using existing infrastructure, water is cheap and plentiful, and dipping the whole car simply removes the need of the "garden hose" man as you described it. It's an obvious idea, so it's obviously being used.

There is nothing "easy" about transporting such a container of water.  Water is cheap and plentiful.  In fact, it would be the perfect approach if only it were readily available, say at a fire hydrant.  Oh, it is, isn't it. 

So you can start fighting an EV fire without waiting for the only tank of water to arrive.  Then if there are N tanks and N+1 fires, no problem. 

I can't believe people are being serious about this idea.


Quote
Now, is this needed? Of course not, it's nctnico's interpretation not backed up by any source or any sensible reasoning. Quite the opposite, if such measures were the only way to stop EV fires, we would be all doomed because these fires happen and in most cases there is no such container available. It's also worth noting Tesla specifically advises against it, this would be pretty weird if it was "necessary".

Yes, weird is the right word.
Rick C.  --  Puerto Rico is not a country... It's part of the USA
  - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
  - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 

Offline gnuarm

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2247
  • Country: pr
Where are the equivalent guides for ICE vehicles.  I can't seem to find them.

Here's something: https://www.firerescue1.com/fire-products/personal-protective-equipment-ppe/articles/firefighter-safety-reminder-car-fires-are-class-b-fires-aHIOlyst4ZAmA2Z6/

>The responding crew got caught in the flash reignition of the liquids, but thankfully, they were protected by their PPE.
The same dreaded reignition, but orders of magnitude faster and thus more dangerous.

>third-degree inhalation burns to the throat, trachea, possibly lungs. Facial burns around the mouth and nose area
>third-degree burns to the scalp, neck, eyes and face.
>third-degree burns to the hands and wrists.
>the gear, when exposed to the extreme high-heat temperatures, starts to off-gas.
> a simple fuel spill fire is enough to push the gear to those limits
>be mindful of what is flowing out from the vehicle and where you are standing in relation to it, and then start extinguishment from a distance before moving closer.

Sounds all pretty nasty.

Flammable liquids are very, very dangerous.  Not only the liquid, but the vapors can accumulate to explosive levels.  It's not an issue very often, but it does happen. 

It's too bad ICE fires are so much more prevalent than EV fires.  Dangerous, and frequent.  Not a good combination.
Rick C.  --  Puerto Rico is not a country... It's part of the USA
  - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
  - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7336
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
We are not doomed, but everyone buying cars now of these "Gen 1" electric cars is going to have a bad time in the future when solid state batteries come out. I really think at some point regular lithium is going to get banned, then you cannot drive into parking garages or city centers with their flashy tesla.

I think that's an insane overreaction, relatively speaking the risk of ICE fire or the risk of EV fire are both quite low, likely the EV represents a lower risk.  If you want to ban any car from a parking garage, ban the 15 year old car with an oil leak and 15A fuses in place of 5A ones that keep blowing for some reason...

Just a few years ago in the UK a fire in a Range Rover that was reportedly 15 years old destroyed 1150 cars and likely wrote off the entire building...
https://www.bafsa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2018/12/Merseyside-FRS-Car-Park-Report.pdf

From the report:

Quote
Running fuel fires were witnessed by BA crews and this undoubtedly led to fire spread
through the drainage system, down ramps and along the rib slab floor. This was also
highlighted in the BRE experiments conducted between 2006 and 2009:

* “Running fuel fires due to failure of plastic fuel tanks in early stages of vehicle
fires can be expected. It is estimated 85% of European vehicles are thought to
have plastic fuel tanks.” (BRE Fire Spread in Car Parks BD2552 p.12).[..]
 
The following users thanked this post: dietert1

Offline aeberbach

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 238
  • Country: au

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about, "thumbnail-face" or "soy faces".   I have to assume you are making some sort of joke.  I'm not laughing.

It means the tendency of YouTube creators to make exaggerated faces on thumbnails is found tiresome by a lot of people to the extent it's an instant skip.
Software guy studying B.Eng.
 
The following users thanked this post: Exosia


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf